And so I was wrong. :-( Typos courtesy of Apple. Sent from my iOS device.
On Jul 1, 2013, at 11:51 AM, "Brian Mason" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: You can use an NLB for SUPs still by setting the default SUP using the SDK. We're not doing that; we're going with a shared DB simply because it served us so well in CM07. There is simply no need for an NLB for MPs since MPs rotate so nicely now. Watch the ClientLocation.log and you'll see that it's reassigning MPs routinely to balance the load. _________________ Brian Mason MCTS, MS MVP ECM http://www.mnscug.org/ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Morrison Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:52 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: Sizing Question My understanding is that NLB is no longer supported for MPs in 2012. You can now just add up to 10 additional MPs per site to handle the traffic. What I saw Brian Mason talk about at MMS was still using NLBs for SUP. But I think I remember him saying it had to be setup via CLI. It was the MVP session for ConfigMgr that he talked about this. Here is the support info from Technet about MPs and load balancers: Site System Roles The following site systems roles are removed: • The reporting point. All reports are generated by the reporting services point. • The PXE service point. This functionality is moved to the distribution point. • The server locator point. This functionality is moved to the management point. • The branch distribution point. Distribution points can be installed on servers or workstations that are in an Active Directory domain. The functionality of the branch distribution point is now a BranchCache setting for an application deployment type and the package deployment. In addition, network load balanced (NLB) management points are no longer supported and this configuration is removed from the management point component properties. Instead, this functionality is automatically provided when you install more than one management point in the site. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:40 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] RE: Sizing Question I’ve heard Brain Mason talk about using them. He may be able to offer advice on this. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Crown, David T. (DTI) Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:18 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] RE: Sizing Question The load balancers are already in production for a number of other core functions. They’re there if I want to use them. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:04 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] RE: Sizing Question For larger environments it’s not a bad idea actually. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dzikowski, Michael Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:37 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] RE: Sizing Question One thing I see is, you really don’t need the load balancers for your MP roles in ConfigMgr 2012. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Crown, David T. (DTI) Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:33 AM To: '[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>' Subject: [mssms] Sizing Question I know it being Monday and all, I’m wondering if you find folks wouldn’t mind double checking my sizing. I changed roles with my employer, and the scale of the configmgr environment I’m used to supporting has grown quite a bit. I’m looking to migrate about 15K, scaling to a potential of 40K, clients from a 2007 and a 2012 (with a CAS for political reasons) to a single 2012 site. The plan is to use a box with 16 cores and 48GB (the plan is get it to 96) of ram with SQL on box and no other roles. For the backing disks, I was looking at three Fibre Channel Luns. One 300~500 gig disk on a high performance lun that can sustain 20K IOPS for the site directory and sql, one 2TB lun on some lower preforming storage for package source and the content library, and a third lun in the same lower performance tier (~1TB) for my backups. I plan on using two to four MP’s as vm’s behind a load balancer, two unprotected DP’s for failback, and one SUP. As the environment is deployed, I plan on bringing in protected DP’s, and for my larger sites (500 to 1000 users), I plan on sticking a secondary at the site. So my question is does my proposed environment look like it could support the number of clients I’ll be managing? ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.
