locked
SCCM 2012 Servers Hierarchy RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi,

    I would like to place bare minimum number of servers for SCCM 2012 and below is our network structure

    we have a total of 4 sites Site1, Site2, Site3, Site4, Site5

    • Site 1 is our Main Data Center with 50 Clients
    • Site 2 with 250 Clients
    • Site 3 with 100 clients
    • Site 4 with 250 clients
    • Site 5 with 900 clients

    and the network link is as below

    • site1 ---30 Mb---> site2
    • site1---8 Mb--->site3
    • site1---30 Mb--->site2---4 Mb (International MPLS)--->site4
    • site1---30 Mb--->site2---4 Mb (International MPLS)--->site4---50 Mb--->site5

    I planning to place only one standalone Primary Server at Site1 and leave other sites with a DP and throttle the bandwidth and limit the client settings per collection for each Site.

    our primary concern is to limit the bandwidth usage as we have other business critical Applications sharing the link.

    Please suggest me if i can go ahead wiIh 1 Primary or placing a Secondary at Site4 which is connected with 4 Mb International MPLS?

    Thank you

    Prasad

    Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:54 AM

Answers

All replies

  • Using a standalone primary and 4 remote DPs should work.

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

    Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:59 AM
  • Hi Prasad,


     1 standalone primary with 4 remote DP hierarchy is ok for your environment.since your site 4 having only 250 clients you can install DP there.you may consider a secondary if you have more than 1k or 2k clients.

    Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:53 AM
  • I agree with Torsten. A Standard DP at Site 4 should be ok (at most customers).

    But 1.150 clients and 4 Mbit MPLS should be ok, depending on your requirements, and what other traffic is going through the MPLS line.

    But you should start with a standard DP, and then "upgrade" to a Secondary if you later finds out that you need it...


    Ronni Pedersen | Microsoft MVP - ConfigMgr | Blogs: www.ronnipedersen.com/ and www.SCUG.dk/ | Twitter @ronnipedersen

    Tuesday, May 7, 2013 11:10 AM
  • you will gain a min. WAN bandwidth on the content distribution by adding a secondary site (because it will compress the traffic), but you will also get a more complex environment and get some added SQL WAN traffic (the replication). I will say that you should go for 4 DP's and a primary.

    Kent Agerlund | My blogs: blog.coretech.dk/kea and SCUG.dk/ | Twitter: @Agerlund | Linkedin: Kent Agerlund | Mastering ConfigMgr 2012 The Fundamentals

    Tuesday, May 7, 2013 11:12 AM
  • Personally, I WOULD go with a Secondary Site at Site 4 - so that you can have a dedicated Software Update Point there from which your 900 client systems at Site 5 can obtain initial catalog data and delta; instead of having 900 systems needing to pull that data over the 4Mb link from Site 1.

    My Personal Blog: http://madluka.wordpress.com

    Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:36 PM
  • Hi Kent, Ronni, Torsten,

    I personally wanted to flatten the hierarchy by placing 1 Primary and 4 DP's, however upgrading one of the site to Secondary at the later stage based on WAN utilization will be subject to design changes to the SCCM and the customer is not at all willing to see any changes in the future, if required to add a secondary, they are happy to add it initially rather taking this call at the later stage.

    I myself wanted to keep 1 Primary and 4 DP's and make Admins life simple in administering the Environment.

    What do you suggest in this case if we wanted to lock-down the design matching the existing Environment?

    Thank you and will await for the final proposal.

    Prasad

    Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:40 AM
  • I would probably put a DP at each site, except for site 4 would be a secondary site with a DP, SUP, and an MP.
    Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:59 PM