I would agree that Peer Cache isn’t ready for prime time – seem to be little 
movement on that feature currently and it’s a long way off useful even in the 
current TP.

In the meantime – good ol’ BranchCache keeps chugging away ☺ Lots of people 
using it today to save many Gb of WAN content transfer, and SCCM CB makes it 
easy to configure now with the addition of BranchCache settings in the Client 
Settings.

MS are keen on pushing P2P as a solution for mitigating large content 
transfers, especially in light of the new Win 7/8/10 CU approach. Expect new 
content soon and sessions at Ignite providing more guidance!

I think in the future Delivery Optimization looks promising and will provide 
additional heavy lifting in the enterprise sphere too.

We always recommend running some tests first – but once setup, BranchCache just 
works..

Cheers

Phil

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of Jason Sandys
Sent: 15 September 2016 23:32
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [mssms] RE: 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child 
sites ?

I don’t have any hard and fast numbers and would never give them as there 
simply are too many factors involved. As noted, it comes down to client count 
at a location along with bandwidth to a location. Package size doesn’t ever 
really come into play necessarily IMO. Sometimes, simple logistics are the 
determining factor well as in “do we even have anywhere secure to put a DP?” 
For small locations without any P2P in use, I’d say 5-10 is probably the max 
I’d ever recommend without a DP though.

The 2Pint guys (among others) would (or will) loudly disagree with you on P2P 
using BranchCache.

PeerCache will make its debut sooner or later but I don’t see why it won’t be 
ready for prime time.

J

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Chramosta, Steven C.
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:31 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: [mssms] RE: 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child 
sites ?

What are your recommendations for justifying a distribution Point?  WAN link - 
# clients – Package sizes?  I’m not convinced peer-to-peer distribution is 
ready for prime time in SCCM CB.

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 2:32 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: [mssms] RE: 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child 
sites ?

**WARNING** This message originated outside of NPPD. DO NOT click on any links 
or attachments unless you have confirmed that it is from a trusted sender.
________________________________
Don’t get caught on those numbers – without knowing how much actual bandwidth 
there is, those numbers are meaningless; e.g., if I have a 10GB link to a 
location, then supporting 7,500 clients with just a DP is totally plausible or 
if I have a 512KB link then a secondary site for just 100 clients is also 
justifiable. Additionally, the maximum number of clients for a supported 
secondary site went up in CB (to 15,000 I believe).

Secondary sites are not gateways either so using them across firewalls is 
problematic at best – you must be able to guarantee that clients can 
communicate with an MP in the primary site – always.

J

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Burke, John
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 2:08 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: [mssms] RE: 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child 
sites ?

Yeah in the past we also used secondary sites to avoid all the fighting of 
dealing with multiple firewalls too.


This is generally how I used to think about it at least.  It’s basically how 
I’ve always designed our setup over the years.

Decision Factors for Placing Secondary Sites
While I have said that no network is the same (which it isn’t), I do have some 
standard design rules I stick to when I am designing hierarchies. These rules 
are fairly simple:-

  *   Remote locations have more than 500 clients and less than 5,000 clients
  *   I need to compress traffic going to the site
  *   I need to control the traffic flowing up
  *   I need a local management point
  *   I need a local software update point
I just want to look at these a bit deeper to explain. These rules are pretty 
much identical to those of Kent 
Agerlund<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.coretech.dk_author_kea_&d=DQMGaQ&c=5KGpHRm-YFpCcO8ia63njg&r=D4-TCBGCq541ZhB5NR_J_w&m=66jnf-4mUcJTAz05Li4imXy-rM9uCcMLvMLBjn0nI2Q&s=kTp3GnvfOsz0PWvul7GQuqIARnnrSBT7xZAx2sDXWHU&e=>
 (awesome MVP), they are like this because they have worked for me the most, I 
have lost count of the number of discussions I have had around secondary sites, 
and these have always served me well.
Based on article 
https://allthingsconfigmgr.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/secondary-site-vs-distribution-point-vs-management-point/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__allthingsconfigmgr.wordpress.com_2013_10_18_secondary-2Dsite-2Dvs-2Ddistribution-2Dpoint-2Dvs-2Dmanagement-2Dpoint_&d=DQMGaQ&c=5KGpHRm-YFpCcO8ia63njg&r=D4-TCBGCq541ZhB5NR_J_w&m=66jnf-4mUcJTAz05Li4imXy-rM9uCcMLvMLBjn0nI2Q&s=qqSf3XXnb58DCeJcj4k913iUi0l1zmu9EJSC3zeT9Lg&e=>


From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:02 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: [mssms] RE: 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child 
sites ?

“wouldn’t we want all our clients to hit an MP closer and send as little 
traffic across as possible? “

That’s a choice for you to make. As noted, based upon the criteria I listed. 
It’s a subjective choice.

Also, closer isn’t better and really has no meaning from a technical 
perspective. It’s all about link usage ultimately. Can the links support the 
traffic? And/or do you want to support the additional complexity and cost of a 
secondary site?

You can always add a secondary site (in the same forest at least) but why would 
you add the complexity and cost if you don’t need to?

J

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Burke, John
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:20 AM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: [mssms] RE: 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child 
sites ?

Hmm this design will basically cover all of Canada. The wan connections range 
from 500 MB – to 40MB.

In one domain for example – we have had the network upgraded over the years. So 
in the 1 2007 environment (old design) we have 1 primary and 3 child sights.  2 
of the sites now have 500 MB connections and 1 has a 40MB.  The counts are 
pretty small now a days since the company has offshored or outsourced 2/3rds of 
the company.  We are looking at under 1000 across the 40MB connection.  I’m 
still learning more about network across the other domains.


So Secondary sites – if we had a couple 1000 systems and they run across 40 MB 
connections or even the 500MB wouldn’t we want all our clients to hit an MP 
closer and send as little traffic across as possible?  SCCM isn’t the only 
thing using those pipes of course so I’m worried about sucking up too much 
bandwidth.  THE DP’s will prevent lots of that of course.. but I was just 
thinking about inventory and all the other client traffic.   I know the other 
SCCM Sites have network concerns when doing larger deployments or even client 
installs.  I”ve never had any issues sending massive packages or cranking up 
all my client settings like inventory and discovery.



From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys
Sent: September-14-16 3:52 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: [mssms] RE: 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child 
sites ?

Secondary sites are about remote locations and bandwidth usage only, not 
domains or political boundaries. Because of SQL replication, you also can’t 
include a secondary site in an untrusted domain.

Thus, your use of secondary sites should be based entirely upon your network 
topology, client, counts at locations, and bandwidth to those locations.

J

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Burke, John
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 12:44 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com>
Subject: [mssms] 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child sites 
?

Hi,

We run 2007 and we with a Primary and 2 child secondary sites we use for proxy 
management points.  At the time we did this because of the slower links we 
didn’t want to congest.

We are being told 2012 and current branch we are moving to, we can flatten it.  
I’m just wondering if  there is no value now to secondary sites to have clients 
“closer” to management points anymore?

We only have 7k or so. Used to have 15 to 20k clients.


Larger project is going to be up to 70k clients across 3 domains.  Right off 
top of my head I was thinking 1 primary with a secondary for each of the 
smaller companies and separate domains but now I’m questioning all that.

Thoughts?









Reply via email to