IMO, I wouldn't bothered with BITS throttling, instead, get your network team to setup QOS to set BITS protocol as lower priority than everything else. This way applications get to the edit user as fast as possible, without cause any network issues.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Matt T Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 1:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: Which of these options would cause the least impact on our site server? Thanks Jason, in my situation we've got a query already created for every boundary that exists in SCCM. We've also taken a list of all the boundaries and assigned them to one of 3 speed tiers for BITS throttling. My task now is to create a collection for each of the speed tiers. Sounds like reusing those boundary queries (you're right, they are based on subnet IDs for the most part.) is the most efficient way instead of building a collection for every query and then rolling all the small collections up in to the larger collection. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Wallace Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:37 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: Which of these options would cause the least impact on our site server? Also we need to consider whether you are planning to use these queries for anything else later. I am guessing that since you are looking to configure BITS throttling then you are likely to be building something around subnet IDs? This being the case then one option would be to create a series of collections: - Denver Clients - Select * from blah where IP Address LIKE '192.168.2%' - Portland Clients - Select * from bla where IP Address LIKE '192.16..3%' And then make a collection - Clients for BITS throttling - INCLUDE Denver Clients, INCLUDE Portland Clients At least this would allow you to use the Denver & Portland collections in other collections too Or you could as you suggest have many queries in one collection Or you could use a single query and the an IS IN with a list of the subnets that you are after Or you could do something client side with a compliance and settings rule which checks for the IP subnets and then build collections for compliance & non-compliance, targeting your revised client settings to these collections Be warned however that if you are planning to BITS throttle AND use BranchCache then you may be sorely disappointed as BITS throttling affects BOTH the local subnet and the remote connections (other providers' solutions work differently) HTH From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Aldrich Sent: 24 March 2015 17:25 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] RE: Which of these options would cause the least impact on our site server? Offhand I'm thinking the latter, as the addition of 2,000 collections on top of what already exists may well hammer Collection Evaluator pretty hard (depending on the frequency of evaluation cycle). OTOH, a single query with "...a large amount of different queries" could also hammer SQL quite hard on that collection's eval cycle... kind of a tough one to judge given what we know thus far, like how complex are the queries? How well are the queries optimized to minimize the SQL hit? Etc, etc... Ed Aldrich | Channel Solutions Engineer | 1E +1 (401) 924-2293 [Description: Description: cid:[email protected]] Ent Cli Mgmt (2003-2014) Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Matt T Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 12:06 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [mssms] Which of these options would cause the least impact on our site server? Need to create 2 pretty large collections for targeting of client settings (controlling BITS throttling). Is it more efficient to create a lot (approximately 2000) of small collections and include them in another collection, or is it better to create one collection with a large number of different queries to determine membership? Trying to have the least amount of performance impact on the site server. Matt Atkinson Client Systems Engineer 3601 Murray Blvd Ste. 175 Beaverton, OR 97005 W: 971-282-0342 C: 503-851-4620 ________________________________ This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete this message. ________________________________ Legal Notice: This email is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this email or calling +44(0) 2083269015 (UK) or +1 866 592 4214 (USA). This email and any attachments may be privileged and/or confidential. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or printing of any information it contains is strictly prohibited. The opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of 1E Ltd. Nothing in this email will operate to bind 1E to any order or other contract. ________________________________ This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete this message.
