Jerry I would ask that you very seriously question whether you want to implement a CAS and what, if any value it will bring you.
A single primary site will scale to a large number of clients and be sufficient for the vast majority of estates (Sherry's and a few others excepted). If you are able to scale out the primary site (take a look at MP Replica) then consider this first. When (and note, when) DRS goes very wrong it will do so rapidly. There are a limited number of people who regularly come across in depth DRS replication issues. Just my 2c worth Deepak, I'm not sure Sherry's point of super-close site server locations is a technet article but we do want them reasonably well connected > On 2 Mar 2016, at 14:06, Deepak Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sherry, > > Do you have a source document or link that you can share for the Microsoft > recommendation referred to below? > > Thanks, > Deepak > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Sherry Kissinger > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mssms] RE: CAS vs Stand-Alone Primary - Network traffic question > > Things to ponder... as you may or may not be aware, having a CAS and primary > sites is and never was meant for doing geographical separations. It almost > sounds like (with only 10k clients) that each currently separate company > "believes" that having two primary sites means something technically. It > doesn't. Microsoft's recommendation is that if you were to have more than 1 > Primary (and therefore a CAS), those servers would be right next to each > other, preferably within the same subnet--because of the replication traffic. > They need to be network-wise super close. Make sure you point that out to > them in your presentation. That having multiple primaries and CAS does not > in ANY POSSIBLE WAY make it "more secure" or "better" or even separated from > a rights points of view. If you have less than 10k clients, I know you have > to "show them"--but really stress how stupid it would be to have multiple > primaries and a CAS. > > Another thing to ponder... I'm completely confused as to why you would "Start > with" going to ConfigMgr 2012. I'm at a loss to understand why you wouldn't > go right to Current Branch? You have to migrate clients anyway... > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Daniel Ratliff <[email protected]> wrote: > CAS, 3 Primaries, 72k clients. Total replication traffic last 7 days. > > Replication Source Site > Replication Target Site > Total MB Sent from Source Site to Target Site > CAS > PR1 > 26,164.44 > CAS > PR2 > 11,757.28 > CAS > PR3 > 19,417.66 > PR1 > CAS > 5,574.60 > PR2 > CAS > 3,057.02 > PR3 > CAS > 761.82 > > > Daniel Ratliff > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Lai, Jerry > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 11:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [mssms] CAS vs Stand-Alone Primary - Network traffic question > > Hi, > > Need some ball park estimates of database sizes and network traffic. > > So, we are in the design stage of our SCCM 2012 implementation. Our first > decision is to choose between a CAS model or Single Primary Site model. > We’ve agreed, in principal, to go with the single Primary model with > co-located SQL db. But we need to present both designs. > > Our company is a newly merged with both previous companies currently running > SCCM 2007 and still managing their own clients separately. > We are trying to figure out what the network impact will be with the > replication traffic of the CAS and two Primary Sites. > The merged company will have about 10,000 devices being managed globally. > > I couldn’t get any definitive answers or ball park numbers through Google > research. > Any assistance would be much appreciated. > > Thanks, > Jerry > > Herbert Smith Freehills LLP and its subsidiaries and Herbert Smith Freehills, > an Australian Partnership, are separate member firms of the international > legal practice known as Herbert Smith Freehills. > > This message is confidential and may be covered by legal professional > privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use > the information contained in it. If you have received this email in error > please notify us immediately by return email or by calling our main > switchboard on +612 9225 5000 and delete the email. > > > Further information is available from www.herbertsmithfreehills.com, > including our Privacy Policy which describes how we handle personal > information. > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed > and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this > material/information in error, > please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information. > > > > > -- > Thank you, > > Sherry Kissinger > > My Parameters: Standardize. Simplify. Automate > Blogs: http://www.mofmaster.com, http://mnscug.org/blogs/sherry-kissinger, > http://www.smguru.org > >
