That more than likely had to do with limitations in your VM infrastructure or configuration. By adding a VM to the mix, all you effectively did was throw more resources at it - same as you did for 2007.
J From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [mssms] RE: System Center Configuration Manager VM VS Physical In 2007 - We co-located it and had to wrestle with performance issues frequently - but in the end - We threw enough resources at it that it performed rather nicely In 2012 - We saw the Light! Our SQL is on a remote VM! From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:37 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] RE: System Center Configuration Manager VM VS Physical "SQLServer should be on a different VM - NOT the Site Server!" --- This one is debateable. The new docs say you should "consider" moving it to a remote server. ________________________________ John Marcum MCITP, MCTS, MCSA Desktop Architect Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP ________________________________ [H_Logo] From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 6:59 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] RE: System Center Configuration Manager VM VS Physical Hello We've been running SCCM 2007 on All Virtual machines - 1 Central / 7 Child Primaries - ~140,000 clients We're in the middle of migrating to ConfigMgr 2012 - CAS - 3 Child Primaries - All virtual / ~170,000 clients Disk latency is a major consideration Also SQLServer should be on a different VM - NOT the Site Server! Hope that helps From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Denzik, Josh Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 7:13 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] System Center Configuration Manager VM VS Physical All, I just wanted to ask anyone willing to share their experiences running an entire SCCM infrastructure on VM's. I am currently managing approximately 18,000 machines in our current environment with a physical site server that has 24 cores and 32 GB of RAM(runs fine). We are getting ready to build a new site after SCCM Vnext comes out with the official production release. Currently we have our VM site server spec'd out at 8 Cores with 32 GB of RAM and all the necessary storage for sql etc. We are also planning to have a additional MP as well. We have fast storage in our data center so that's not an issue. We are also worried about growth; and we close to the max our server team can give us as far as server cores and ram. This was the recommended hardware recommendations updated today per Microsoft https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt589500.aspx. I am expecting that if we go with this VM setup that is should accommodate growth up to at least 40,000 clients? Is there a secret formula to figure this out? Is Physical the preferred method? If anyone can please share their VM specs in a large SCCM environment they are running that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in Advance! Joshua Denzik Senior Systems Engineer | Managed Desktop Team | OCIO-IS ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete it from your computer.
