was the drive dedup'd ?

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Matt Wilkinson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Solved the issue by moving the content lib off the c drive where it had
> “decided” to go.
>
> Still having a slowdown and eventually death of the multicast transmission
> if too many client join at the same time. I may have to look at scheduled
> cast.
>
>
>
> Does anybody know if anything switch config wise would cause this?
>
>
>
> *From:* Matt Wilkinson [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* 06 August 2014 08:29
>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: [MDT-OSD] SCCM 2012 R2 CU2 Multicast
>
>
>
> Ok it’s not a bad image.
>
> Any image the is distributed and has the multicast enabled since the CU2
> upgrade fails to deploy. I get the infamous hash error.
>
>
>
> Installation of image 1 in package <package> failed to complete..
>
> The hash value is not correct. (Error: 80091007; Source:
> Windows)            ApplyOperatingSystem 05/08/2014 12:41:03        1632
> (0x0660)
>
>
>
> Further up the log it appears I get an error 3.
>
>
>
> Encountered error transfering file (0x80070003).
> ApplyOperatingSystem 05/08/2014 12:41:03        1632 (0x0660)
>
>
>
>
>
> Anybody had a similar issue?
>
>
>
> Do I need to remove the tick for multicast across all images remove the
> multicast role on the DP and re-enable then tick the multicast option for
> each image?
>
> *From:* Matt Wilkinson [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>]
>
> *Sent:* 01 August 2014 10:24
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: [MDT-OSD] SCCM 2012 R2 CU2 Multicast
>
>
>
> Thanks for all the help. Looks like a bad image. Out of curiosity what’s
> the largest image people have deployed using multicast? This one is 13GB.
>
>
>
> *From:* Matt Wilkinson [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>]
>
> *Sent:* 30 July 2014 08:39
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: [MDT-OSD] SCCM 2012 R2 CU2 Multicast
>
>
>
> After a bit of testing it appears the transmission drops as a client joins
> the stream. Is this normal? If too many clients join in close succession
> the speed is extremely slow. Network utilisation falls to 0.01% rather than
> the usual 70% .
>
>
>
> *From:* the codepoets [mailto:[email protected]
> <[email protected]>]
> *Sent:* 29 July 2014 16:23
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [MDT-OSD] SCCM 2012 R2 CU2 Multicast
>
>
>
> I do not use multicast in my SCCM environment, but I remember seeing this
> when CU2 came out... perhaps you are dealing with what is being blogged
> about?
>
>
>
>
> http://thoughtsonopsmgr.blogspot.com/2014/07/ur2-sccm-2012-r2-breaks-mulitcast-again.html
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:08 AM, elsalvoz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Multicast is not a SCCM technology per se, it can use that protocol to
> deliver images though. This behavior points to unicast being used or
> network configuration in your environment have changed as well.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Matt Wilkinson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Anybody had any issues? Before CU2 we could have 40 clients downloading an
> image. Multicast seems to grind to a halt when 30 or more clients join the
> transmission.
>
>
>
> *Matt Wilkinson*
>
> IT Technician
>
> Leeds College of Building
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on
> behalf
> of Leeds College of Building.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on
> behalf
> of Leeds College of Building.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on
> behalf
> of Leeds College of Building.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on
> behalf
> of Leeds College of Building.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on
> behalf
> of Leeds College of Building.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on
> behalf
> of Leeds College of Building.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on
> behalf
> of Leeds College of Building.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on
> behalf
> of Leeds College of Building.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System on
> behalf
> of Leeds College of Building.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> _____________________________________________________________________
>

Reply via email to