Vicky Røde wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
hmm..I thought (correct me if I wrong) wsus followed a mirror
(distributed) model say if a group of servers were pegged the update
process would provide remote clients access to the closet and min
latency host(s) in order to distribute the load prevent bandwidth
saturation.
regards,
/virendra
Elijah Savage wrote:
Sean Donelan wrote:
So, maybe an operational question.
What are people seeing as far as network traffic loads due to WMF patching
activity, e.g. auto-update and manual downloads? Microsoft has used
several CDNs in addition to its own servers to distribute the load
in the past.
WSUS servers are being pounded right now. Usually 5 to 7% CPU now 72%
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDvqLlpbZvCIJx1bcRAoF4AJ9pi/xlNkX8mSMT4ogZcVccrJ9ijACg854X
JhwaWYg6bEmVf4yHVmY6mQI=
=3oZt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You are correct and with BITS2.0 or really any version of BITS which any
updated system should have BITS2.0 it will use only the available
bandwidth given. So say you are using 70% of your bandwidth, BITS on XP
will only use the other 30%. So Bandwidth should not be an issue, but
what I have noticed with WSUS is multiple clients connecting to the
server will drive cpu utilization up only in peak form though like on
initial connection. For us this is one service that was not built
redundant because if for some reason like maintenance and our server is
down the clients will then failover to Micro$ofts servers to get them
directly.
--
http://www.digitalrage.org/
The Information Technology News Center
