locked
Secondary Site SQL express or full? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I am currently looking in to whether we should be using sql express or full sql for our secondary sites.

    Our device amounts are relatively small. My colleague was wanting to go with 4 primary sites but I have since convinced him to go with secondary sites and one primary instead. Now I am trying to look in to whether we can go with sql express on the secondary sites.Our primary site has SQL standard 2012. Our total users across the globe is 800 with secondary sites being less than 100 each. They might end up having more than one device but no more than three per user.

    1) what limitations exist with using SQL express on secondary sites in terms of performance and user/device limits.

    2) In terms of database replication are there any limitations with regards to sql express on secondaries?

    3) We currently have SQL 2012 standard servers at the secondary site locations in use by other applications. These could be used for the secondary sites.

    4) in terms of backup, i am thinking it would be easier to backup just the primary site and have all the others replicate to it. Is this a normal configuration, in terms of sql backups.

    Thanks

    Monday, March 14, 2016 3:29 PM

Answers

  • Local management point will *not* help remote administrators as the MP has nothing to do with administration or the console. Same for secondary sites -- these have *nothing* to do with administration. For ease of administration across links, the best strategy is to use a remote desktop session host near the site server that admins RDP into. RDPing into the primary site  is a bad idea though in general. Not sure what is or isn't "fair". That's invalid -- the only thing that is valid is whether they can do their jobs or not. 

    There's absolutely no reason to use anything except SQL Express for the secondaries unless you like more complexity and/or paying more money.

    "May have to set up multiple primaries."

    That is a terrible reason. The remote desktop session host will provide everything that they need. Multiple primary sites add overhead, latency, and complexity in everything that you do.


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

    • Proposed as answer by Frank Dong Friday, March 25, 2016 10:59 AM
    • Marked as answer by Frank Dong Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:39 PM
    Monday, March 14, 2016 8:14 PM

All replies

  • Why have secondary's at all what that few # of clients? Why not have remote DPs only?

    1) you will never hit any limitation with 800 computers.

    2) nope

    3) It is not recommend to share database with CM12

    4) other will chime in but I wouldn't worry about this.


    Garth Jones

    Blog: http://www.enhansoft.com/blog Old Blog: http://smsug.ca/blogs/garth_jones/default.aspx

    Twitter: @GarthMJ Book: System Center Configuration Manager Reporting Unleased

    Monday, March 14, 2016 4:14 PM
  • The idea is that the IT staff in Hong Kong and Australia need a local management point because the latency to London will be too slow. I had a hard enough time talking my superior out of primary sites, never get away with only DP. :)

    3. So you would recommend either standalone sql 2012 full only or sql express. In that case it makes more sense to go with sql express on secondaries.

    I am just in the process of installing a test secondary site across the mpls so we can see how the management point performs and whether secondary sites will allow for foreign IT staff to manage SCCM.

    In terms of OS deployment and modifying task sequences, can that only be done from primary site? I suggest to just rdp in to the primary site and do it from there but my boss/colleague thinks that is unfair on the foreign IT departments that want to manage their deployments and software.

    edit: I now see that the management point role on secondary sites will not work with a console. The only way to get management to the foreign sites is with a primary site. I still think that going through rdp to main site would be better but I can see how enabling them to manage their sccm independently could have benefits as well. May have to set up multiple primaries.

    Question, if i setup multiple primaries, to what extent can they manage child sites of that primary site? Do they have full control in terms of roles and OS deployment or is there still certain tasks that need to be done on the central admin site for those child sites?

    Sorry for going off topic.

    • Edited by Johnmclain Monday, March 14, 2016 7:54 PM
    Monday, March 14, 2016 4:36 PM
  • Local management point will *not* help remote administrators as the MP has nothing to do with administration or the console. Same for secondary sites -- these have *nothing* to do with administration. For ease of administration across links, the best strategy is to use a remote desktop session host near the site server that admins RDP into. RDPing into the primary site  is a bad idea though in general. Not sure what is or isn't "fair". That's invalid -- the only thing that is valid is whether they can do their jobs or not. 

    There's absolutely no reason to use anything except SQL Express for the secondaries unless you like more complexity and/or paying more money.

    "May have to set up multiple primaries."

    That is a terrible reason. The remote desktop session host will provide everything that they need. Multiple primary sites add overhead, latency, and complexity in everything that you do.


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

    • Proposed as answer by Frank Dong Friday, March 25, 2016 10:59 AM
    • Marked as answer by Frank Dong Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:39 PM
    Monday, March 14, 2016 8:14 PM
  • OK John I agree with you.I am happy to go with secondary sites because i don't think the improved management is worth the cost of 3 extra sql licenses.

    Based on this article: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/gg712681.aspx

    "Configuration Manager does not limit the number of simultaneous Configuration Manager console connections to a primary site or central administration site. When you connect to the central administration site, you can view and configure data for all sites in the hierarchy. If you have a central administration site but connect the Configuration Manager console directly to a primary site, you can view and manage Configuration Manager data from this connection, but you cannot see data from other primary sites or from the secondary sites of other primary sites. However, if you do not have a central administration site because your hierarchy has a stand-alone primary site, you can use the Configuration Manager console to access all the data in your hierarchy."

    This to me indicates that if we went with primaries IT staff could manage OS and package deployment from the local primary site. Which may add at a point in the future.

    Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:08 AM
  • Yes, this is true, but it comes at a cost -- both money wise and as noted performance wise in terms of latency, overhead, and complexity. And once you've had to troubleshoot a SQL replication issue, you'll swear to never ever utter the word "CAS" again.

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

    Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:27 PM