Cool! That's what I expected. Won't they help by ensuring that clients don't have to get content direct from DP?
I have seen cases where the RB has freaked content going from site server to site server and CM has not been able to cope but I just wanted to verify their use on the DP to client comms issue. > On 2 Mar 2016, at 21:42, Marcum, John <jmar...@babc.com> wrote: > > Okay… I think I get it now. All the RB does, or at least it did when I used > them years ago, is cache content so that one PC pulls it over the WAN and the > others don’t have to. If they still work that way they will not harm nor > benefit your CM environment. If they are doing more than they used to I can’t > speak to that because I haven’t touched one in a very long time. > > When I used them I replaced DP’s with them. > > > > > > > John Marcum > MCITP, MCTS, MCSA > Desktop Architect > Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP > <image001.png> > <image002.png> > > From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] > On Behalf Of Ryan Shugart > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 2:52 PM > To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [mssms] Use of Riverbeds at remote offices > > Well, each remote office has both a Server 2012R2 machine acting as a DP and > a Riverbed appliance. The appliances optimize all WAN traffic (not just SCCM > but standard file share, VOIP, etc.) between the branch office and home > office. So, when we send out a new package from the primary site server to > the remote DPs, they pass through the riverbeds and that traffic is optimized > as well. Now I know SCCM 2012R2 compresses traffic heading to remote DPs > where SCCM 2007 did not, so its not as important now as it was then, but > since the Riverbeds are there and just optimizing everything, including SCCM, > I was just saying it hasn’t caused any issues. We didn’t put them for SCCM > specifically, more for standard file access and Citrix access from remote > offices. > Ryan > > From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] > On Behalf Of Marcum, John > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 1:12 PM > To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [mssms] Use of Riverbeds at remote offices > > When you say “behind 19 DP’s” I don’t follow you.. Back when I did use > Riverbeds, which was on SMS 2003 I should say, we used them in-place of DP’s. > In very small offices the cached on the riverbed typically would suffice for > content when doing patches etc. Again, now there are much better ways to > accomplish this goal. i.e. Nomad > > John Marcum > MCITP, MCTS, MCSA > Desktop Architect > Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP > <image001.png> > <image004.png> > > From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] > On Behalf Of Ryan Shugart > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 2:07 PM > To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [mssms] Use of Riverbeds at remote offices > > Actually we use Riverbeds behind about 19 DPs at remote offices and it works > just fine. We use HTTP, not HTTPS traffic for our DPs (yes I know and that > will change) so can’t comment on the certs but its been fine. We did run > into issues with the Riverbeds with the old CM07 environment and had to put > bypasses on all the remote DPs but that hasn’t come up again in 2012R2. So > yes, someone does use Riverbeds, they still exist. > Ryan > > From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] > On Behalf Of Marcum, John > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 12:57 PM > To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: RE: [mssms] Use of Riverbeds at remote offices > > Jeeze… that post was 5 years ago! Nobody uses Riverbeds anymore. When I did > say that I liked Riverbeds it was only as a WAN accelerator not anything > more. It sounds like you are trying to run a DP on the appliance. If that’s > the case I’m unfamiliar with that use case, probably because as I said…Nobody > uses riverbeds anymore. J > > If I had a branch office scenario where I needed a DP and I couldn’t have a > DP I’d buy nomad and be done with it. That is simple, cheap and well proven > technology. > > > > > > > > John Marcum > MCITP, MCTS, MCSA > Desktop Architect > Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP > <image001.png> > <image004.png> > > From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] > On Behalf Of Jason Wallace > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 10:29 AM > To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com > Subject: [mssms] Use of Riverbeds at remote offices > > Hi there folks > > I was wondering if someone would have some detail on using Riverbed > Steelheads with CM Agents please? > > We are working on a CM design with DPs at a head office location hosting > BranchCache and clients at remote offices. Between them we have a number of > SteelHeads and I am keen to find out more about how this scenario stands up. > > The customer only supports Riverbedding HTTPS traffic so the assumption is > that we will be supplying the web server certs of the DPs so that they can > get at the data while in transit in order to cache it > > As I have been BinGoogling I have found that Mr Marcum is a fan but Mr Sandys > is not > > https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/systemcenter/en-US/d9ced859-9fe9-4210-9418-3b3f5e02be45/riverbed-scenario?forum=configmgrgeneral > > I also note that RiOS 8.5 introduced support for BranchCache in hosted mode. > Now I know that CM does not support Hosted mode, running in distributed mode > but should the customer implement this does anyone know if the Riverbeds then > publish a service connection point? > > Best Wishes > > Jason > > > > 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. > > > MiTek Holdings, Inc., 2011-2014, All Rights Reserved > > This communication (including any attachments) contains information which is > confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the > intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note > that any distribution, copying, or use of this communication or the > information in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and then destroy > any copies of it. > > > >
