locked
CAS and 2 Primary sites vs 1 Primary site and 1 Secondary site RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi, 

    Suppose a deployment environment in 2 countries with a datacenter location and 4 branch offices each. A slow WAN bandwidth connection is in between the datacenters. Each datacenter is servicing about 1000 clients. I'm crossing my mind whether or not to use 1 CAS and 2 Primary sites or just a Primary site in the 1st and a Secondary site in the 2nd datacenter. When WAN link fails, running software- or OS distributions should not fail at the secondary site location. Management will be done at the primary site location.  

    Personally i prefer to have only one site because prestaging computer accounts can be done in just one place and is much easier. 

    regards!

    Monday, April 23, 2012 5:56 PM

Answers

  • I don't think a CAS is needed for such a small number of clients.  They are generally needed for larger scale environments.  But, if you think you may need it, you have to make the decision before.  You cannot create a CAS after you deploy without one.
    Monday, April 23, 2012 6:27 PM

All replies

  • I don't think a CAS is needed for such a small number of clients.  They are generally needed for larger scale environments.  But, if you think you may need it, you have to make the decision before.  You cannot create a CAS after you deploy without one.
    Monday, April 23, 2012 6:27 PM
  • I agree, no CAS needed.

    Standardize. Simplify. Automate.

    Monday, April 23, 2012 6:56 PM
  • A slow WAN bandwidth connection is in between the datacenters. 
    [...]
    When WAN link fails, running software- or OS distributions should not fail at the secondary site location.

    Primaries and the CAS should be connected using high speed bandwidth, so your network does not fulfill that requirement.
    SWdist and OSD will no longer work if the WAN fails. So it's a challenging task.

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

    Monday, April 23, 2012 7:31 PM
  • If I am reading this correctly it looks like you may be managing less than 10K clients (all up) in which case I agree with the recommendations posted here - you really do not need a CAS and in fact you do not even need a secondary site. I would just go with a single primary site and with this release we support MP and DP roles across forests/domains. You could look at just having a single primary site and multiple DPs/MPs to serve the clients appropriately in the respective locations.

    Thanks,

    Bhaskar

    Monday, April 23, 2012 9:19 PM
  • I agree, but how should i limit the bandwidth usage between the two countries? And, I really want running deployments not to fail when the WAN link fails.
    Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:15 AM
  • You would deploy a distribution point to at least the 2 Datacenters (or you could also deploys DPs to the offices).  This way, all of your applications and images are downloaded from a local server.
    Tuesday, April 24, 2012 5:24 PM
  • You can also use a secondary site with a DP hosted on the secondary. The difference between a stand-alone DP and a secondary in 2012 is smaller than it was in 2007 and not quite as clear cut though as it was in 2007.

    Bottom line though, CASes are not about bandwidth, they are about supporting multiple primaries which are only required if you have 100,000+ clients (there are a few small exceptions but these are very specific).


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com | Twitter @JasonSandys

    Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:25 PM