One example is we need to install some client/server software that connects to 
a different servers that is defined using a /server= switch.

 

So the DT looks something like this:

 

DT 1 - Command line: install.exe /server:devserver01

DT 2 - Command line: install.exe /server:prodserver01

 

DT1 would need to run on 50 of the machines

DT2 would need to run on 50 of the machines

 

You could say all 100 machines are the same for this.  I’m not able to create a 
requirement based off something unique saying if you have this setting then run 
DT1 if you have this setting run DT2. 

 

I think I answered my own question.  It sounds like all I could do is create 2 
applications for the same application and 2 collections (1 collection with 50 
machine, 2nd collection with 50 machines) and target App1 (install.exe 
/server:devserver01) to collection1 and App2 (install.exe /server:prodserver01) 
to collection2.  Unless I’m missing something.



Rob

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Juelich, Adam
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 2:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [mssms] Applications - Requirements

 

With GPO Preferences you would use 'Item-Level Targeting.'  No need to make 
your OU structure more complex and mess with the default Security Filtering.

 

I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to do.  You could create 
your own requirement based on something do have different Deployment Types 
target them.  What is the differentiating factor between these devices?




-----------------------------------------------

Adam Juelich

Pulaski Community School District <http://www.pulaskischools.org> 

Client Management Specialist

920-822-6075

 

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:32 PM, ccollins9 <[email protected]> wrote:

Well even with GPO preferences, you would need a way to differentiate the 
computers.  So either deploying the GPO to two different OUs, or if one OU, 
have the machines in groups and apply GPO Security filtering to the GPO so that 
different computers get the different settings.

 

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Robert Spinelli <[email protected]> wrote:

Could be really anything, this machine is part of LOB1 and this machine is part 
of LOB2 for example and they want this setting over this setting but they are 
both in the same OU.

 

GPO Preferences is a thought.

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of ccollins9
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 10:22 AM
To: mssms
Subject: Re: [mssms] Applications - Requirements

 

Just curious, what makes the different enough to run different commands on 
different machines?  Of the top of my head, you could put a registry setting on 
them via GPO Preferences, then have the DT requirements check for the different 
registry settings. 

 

 

 

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Robert Spinelli <[email protected]> 
wrote:

So trying to figure out how others do this:

 

Application called App1

 

The App can be installed using 2 command lines:

 

Command line1: install.exe /test1

Command line2: install.exe /test2

 

You want to use App1 and target it to a collection based of a user group 
called: Contoso\App1 with 100 machines in it.

 

50 of the machines need command line: install.exe /test1

50 of the machines need command line: install.exe /test2

 

I can create 2 DT’:

 

DT1: install.exe /test1

DT2: install.exe /test2

 

In order to do requirements for both DT’s its best to bounce of something local 
on the machine (ex: OS), but what if there really isn’t anything different 
about the 100 machines 50 of them need to do a specific thing (ex: /test1) and 
the other 50 need to do some other specific thing (ex: /test2).  I was thinking 
of doing a requirement based off of AD group, but from everything I read 
requirements shouldn’t use AD groups since that could cause high load at 
evaluation time.  

 

Do others just create 2 apps even though it’s the same app just with a 
different command line and then create 2 collections and target those 2 
collections?  

 

Rob

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




Reply via email to