none
SCCM 2012 SP1 - Design - Architecture Question

    Question

  • Hello all,

    currently planning a SCCM 2012 solution. Want to know which design option you would prefer. Feedback appreciated. Thanks.

      • 50 Sites
      • Every Sites has a range of 15 - 200 clients
      • 3000 clients in sum
      • WAN Connections: 1Gbit/s
      • Option 1)
        • 1 Main office
          • CAS with co located SQL Server
          • Primary Site Server with co located SQL Server  (DP, MP, SMS Provider and SUP)
          • Site System Server: (DP, MP, SMS Provider and SUP)
        • 1 Backup site of main office
          • One SQL Server: Replica of CAS DB and PS DB
        • 10 offices with 100 clients: each with one site system server (DP, MP and SUP)
        • 30 offices with less 100 clients: (DP)
        • 8 Remote small offices: communicate via WAN to "Other offices"
        • Requirements: high availability
          • Important roles redundant: DP,MP and SUP and SMS Provider
          • Disaster Recovery of CAS DB or PS DB: restore the PS DB from CAS DB and vice versa
            • data state (RPO) better than having it from the backup
          • Disaster Recovery of CM Installation: restore from backup (placed on remote share)
          • If Main office is down (meaning really all systems are damaged)
            • Restore CM Installation of CAS and PS on backup site of main office and assign Replica DB
            • SAN Storages will be replicated between main office and backup site of main office
        • Pro: RTO is faster than Option 2 and management/configuration is still possible if PS or CS Server down.
        • Cons: more systems than Option 2 and complexity increase
      • Option 2)
        • 1 Main office
          • One Primary Site with Primary Server with co located SQL Server (DP, MP, SMS Provider and SUP)
          • Site System Server: (DP, MP, SMS Provider and SUP)
        • 1 Backup site of main office
          • One SQL Server: Replica of CAS DB and PS DB
        • 10 offices with 100 clients: each with one site system server (DP, MP and SUP)
        • 30 offices with less 100 clients: (DP)
        • 8 Remote small offices: communicate via WAN to "Other offices"
        • Requirements: high availability
          • Disaster Recovery of PS DB: restore from backup (placed on remote share)
          • Disaster Recovery of CM Installation: restore from backup (placed on remote share)
          • If Main office is down (meaning really all systems are damaged)
          • Restore CM Installation of PS on backup site of main office and assign Replica DB
          • SAN Storages will be replicated between main office and backup site of main office
      • Pro: Keep it simple approach.
      • Cons: If PS Server down then it would take more time to restore comparing to Option1

      For sure if we wouldnt have the HA requirements I would go for Option 2.

      Bye,

      Guitarman

    Friday, July 26, 2013 6:13 PM

Answers

  • A CAS does not provide HA, so go for option #2.

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    Friday, July 26, 2013 6:27 PM
  • Both designs have flaws. I won't even address option 1 because it's just bad.

    Why are you placing MP's at remote sites? They don't adhere to boundaries.

      • Option 3)
        • 1 Main office
          • One Primary Site with Primary Server with co located SQL Server (All roles) –replicated VM to DR site.
        • 1 DR Site
          • Replica of main office
        • 40 offices with 100 clients: each with one site system server (DP)
        • 8 Remote small offices: communicate via WAN to "Other offices"


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Friday, July 26, 2013 7:44 PM
  • I concur with John and Torsten.

    No CAS, no CAS, no CAS ... no CAS.


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    Friday, July 26, 2013 8:13 PM

All replies

  • A CAS does not provide HA, so go for option #2.

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    Friday, July 26, 2013 6:27 PM
  • Both designs have flaws. I won't even address option 1 because it's just bad.

    Why are you placing MP's at remote sites? They don't adhere to boundaries.

      • Option 3)
        • 1 Main office
          • One Primary Site with Primary Server with co located SQL Server (All roles) –replicated VM to DR site.
        • 1 DR Site
          • Replica of main office
        • 40 offices with 100 clients: each with one site system server (DP)
        • 8 Remote small offices: communicate via WAN to "Other offices"


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Friday, July 26, 2013 7:44 PM
  • I haven't seen that he wanted to place MPs at the remote locations, so I second John's statement. Don't put MPs at those remote offices.

    Torsten Meringer | http://www.mssccmfaq.de

    Friday, July 26, 2013 7:58 PM
  • I concur with John and Torsten.

    No CAS, no CAS, no CAS ... no CAS.


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    Friday, July 26, 2013 8:13 PM
  • Hi Torsten, John and Jason,

    thanks for the feedback. I did a research and found out that Hyper-V has a replication feature. That's really a very cool functionality and seems to be easy to configure.

    I'll go for a mixture of Option 2 and Option 3

    • 1 Main office
      • One Primary Site with Primary Server with co located SQL Server (All roles)
      •       replicated VM to DR site via Hyper-V Replica
      • Site System Server: (DP, MP, SMS Provider and SUP)
      •       with a SQL DB Replica for the MP
    • 1 DR Site
      • Replica of main office (Hyper-V Replica)
    • 40 offices with 100 clients: each with one site system server (DP)
    • 8 Remote small offices: communicate via WAN to "Other offices"

    Does SCCM 2012 Support Hyper-V Replica?

    Guitar man


    Saturday, July 27, 2013 10:46 AM
  • It's not officially supported but I do it in VMware and I've tested it many times. Works perfectly. There is no true HA model that is supported.

    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/johnmarcum/

    Saturday, July 27, 2013 11:58 AM