locked
SCCM 2012 Primary site Design RRS feed

  • Question

  • We are moving from SCCM 2007 to SCCM 2012.  We are a global company with about 2500 users spread out over various sites globally.  In our Headquarters in the US (Florida) we have about 1500 users and our Headquarters in Europe (Germany) we have about 500-600 users.  We are trying to decide on the design.  I know  from reading that 1 primary site and no CAS should work fine.  But the IT staff in the German headquarters wants the primary site there.  They have less users and devices but more remote sub locations.  Does it make sense to have the Primary site at a location that has less users and devices than the other headquarter site in the US.  Would it make sense to have a secondary site?  Our concern is if we do implement 2 primary sites and a CAS the SQL data replication between the 2 primary sites would affect the WAN connection.  Does this affect administration from the US if we have 2 different IT teams one in the US and the other in Germany?

    Thanks.


    Steve

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 2:42 PM

Answers

  • Don't set up a  CAS for such a small amount of clients. It's hard to advise without knowing all details (network layout, clients per location, WAN speed etc) - both configurations could be done (standalone primary in the US vs Germany). 

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

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 2:56 PM
  • I agree with Torsten..

    You should be fine with A secondary or even a Pull DP for the locations.  Administration isn't a big deal, but you will have replication data over the WAN link, extra license costs, more complexity and CAS creates Replication Delay.  With a Secondary you will have link data as well but you don't have the infrastructure necessary for a CAS. 

    I have whole countries under 1 secondary.  It appears this is mostly a political question than a technology question.  You can run it with a Single Primary at the headquarters with a Secondary (or DP on the Primary) there and a Secondary in Germany.  If you are worried about speed and data transfer then the Primary needs to be a the site with the fast connection, which might be in a remote datacenter. 


    http://www.sccm-tools.com http://sms-hints-tricks.blogspot.com

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 3:04 PM
  • 2 stand-alone primary sites is not simpler though and is not what I'm suggesting. A single primary site to cover all locations is sufficient. There really is no huge difference between putting it in either location although it should be closest to the folks that create the most content in general as that's truly the only thing that is impactful from a remote location.

    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com | @jasonsandys

    Thursday, May 7, 2015 3:14 PM

All replies

  • Don't set up a  CAS for such a small amount of clients. It's hard to advise without knowing all details (network layout, clients per location, WAN speed etc) - both configurations could be done (standalone primary in the US vs Germany). 

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

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 2:56 PM
  • I agree with Torsten..

    You should be fine with A secondary or even a Pull DP for the locations.  Administration isn't a big deal, but you will have replication data over the WAN link, extra license costs, more complexity and CAS creates Replication Delay.  With a Secondary you will have link data as well but you don't have the infrastructure necessary for a CAS. 

    I have whole countries under 1 secondary.  It appears this is mostly a political question than a technology question.  You can run it with a Single Primary at the headquarters with a Secondary (or DP on the Primary) there and a Secondary in Germany.  If you are worried about speed and data transfer then the Primary needs to be a the site with the fast connection, which might be in a remote datacenter. 


    http://www.sccm-tools.com http://sms-hints-tricks.blogspot.com

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 3:04 PM
  • I concur with Matt and Torsten. Simple is always better and whining is not a valid technical reason to have a CAS and multiple primaries.

    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com | @jasonsandys

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 3:45 PM
  • Thanks for your reply Torsten.  Yes, I agree we don't need a CAS or another Primary Site based on our infrastructure.  When you indicate separate standalone Primary sites then these would be completely different instances of SCCM 2012 with different Namespaces.    The goal of this project was to be able to globally distribute software.  I know we can still do that but we would have to manage 2 different environments.  Correct?  They don't share a database, correct?


    Steve

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 4:55 PM
  • Hi Matthew, thanks for your reply.  Yes it is mostly a political issue.  But what I am trying to find out is, with regard to a design perspective, is having the Primary site at a location that has a lot less users then a site that only has a secondary or DP site detrimental to performance and manageability?  I understand that it may be a little difficult to make that decision without knowing the complete topology.  We have 50 MB wan link between out US data center and our Germany Data center.  Is there any technical reason not to have the primary site at the Germany site with the smaller amount of users then the US site.  Really what determines where the primary site should live.

    Thanks.


    Steve

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 5:59 PM
  • Hi Jason, thanks for your reply.  Yes I agree whining is not a technical reason.  But in my corporation we manage IT from 2 primary location US and Germany.  I know the simple solution would be 2 standalone primary sites and have them work autonomously.  We have a requirement to be able to use the software globally to be able to distribute content from each location to every location. What I am trying to determine is what are the pros and cons of having a primary site not at the largest location.   

    Thanks.


    Steve

    Wednesday, May 6, 2015 6:38 PM
  • 2 stand-alone primary sites is not simpler though and is not what I'm suggesting. A single primary site to cover all locations is sufficient. There really is no huge difference between putting it in either location although it should be closest to the folks that create the most content in general as that's truly the only thing that is impactful from a remote location.

    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com | @jasonsandys

    Thursday, May 7, 2015 3:14 PM