locked
My SCCM 2007 Secondary Site Servers have multiple "SMS_SiteSystemToSiteServerConnection_<SiteCode>" and "SMS_SiteToSiteConnection_<SiteCode>" local groups RRS feed

  • Question

  • My organization is going through a SCCM 2012 migration and I was asked about our current SCCM 2007 Secondary Sites and when I remoted into my secondary site servers I saw that two of the three servers have multiple "SMS_SiteSystemToSiteServerConnection_<SiteCode>" and "SMS_SiteToSiteConnection_<SiteCode>" local groups. 

    This just seemed quite odd and I wanted to know if anyone has dealt with this before.

    Thank you

    Monday, February 10, 2014 10:26 PM

Answers

  • Okay, it looks like I was right about the typos the former SCCM admin had done during a couple of tries at creating the secondary sites. An email that was sent to me by a server engineer that explained that he edited the sitectrl file and renamed the secondary site to what it is currently, but he never removed those extra, needless groups. So I deleted them and everything appears to be working okay.

    Thanks



    • Marked as answer by Ron_Ratzlaff Friday, February 28, 2014 9:15 PM
    • Edited by Ron_Ratzlaff Friday, February 28, 2014 9:16 PM
    Friday, February 28, 2014 9:15 PM

All replies

  • SMS_SiteSystemToSiteServerConnection_<SiteCode>--this group grants the necessary permissions for CM07 services running on remote site systems (such as management points) to connect to the site server to access the CM07 registry keys and directories on the site server.

    SMS_SiteToSiteConnection_<SiteCode>--This group has the necessary permissions for a sender to connect from CM07 site to another.

    same groups ? it will not allow to have same groups.can you check if there are any members part of these groups ?



    Eswar Koneti | Configmgr blog: www.eskonr.com | Linkedin: Eswar Koneti | Twitter: Eskonr

    Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:59 AM
  • Thanks for your reply Eswar.

    One of the SMS_SiteToSiteConnection_<SiteCode> groups on two of my Secondary Site servers I believe are configured correctly and they both have my Primary Site Server as a member, but the SMS_SiteSystemToSiteServerConnection_<SiteCode> group is empty. Is the SMS_SiteSystemToSiteServerConnection_<SiteCode> group supposed to contain my Primary Site server as well? Both the SMS_SiteSystemToSiteServerConnection_<SiteCode> and the SMS_SiteToSiteConnection_<SiteCode> groups on my Primary Site Server have my Secondary Site Servers as members. 

    Is this correct?

    I'm wondering now if the strange groups with the odd site codes that don't even exist were created when the secondary sites were initially being created a while back. From the documentation, it looks like the former admin initially configured the secondary sites using a PowerShell script created by Kaido Jarvemets. According to some of the notes I have read, the admin kept uninstalling and re-installing the sites when they were not showing up in the SCCM 2007 Admin console, but apparently they simply forgot to configure a Sender and an Address, if that makes any sense to you.

    So, perhaps these groups ending with an odd Secondary Site code may have been a typo during one of the installation attempts? If this is the case, can these groups be deleted?

    One thing I forgot to mention was that the Secondary Site servers belong to a Global Security AD group and that group is used to add them to both the SMS_SiteSystemToSiteServerConnection_<SiteCode and the SMS_SiteToSiteConnection_<SiteCode> groups on the Primary Site server.

    Is this allowed?

    Thanks



    • Edited by Ron_Ratzlaff Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:06 AM
    Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:59 AM
  • Okay, it looks like I was right about the typos the former SCCM admin had done during a couple of tries at creating the secondary sites. An email that was sent to me by a server engineer that explained that he edited the sitectrl file and renamed the secondary site to what it is currently, but he never removed those extra, needless groups. So I deleted them and everything appears to be working okay.

    Thanks



    • Marked as answer by Ron_Ratzlaff Friday, February 28, 2014 9:15 PM
    • Edited by Ron_Ratzlaff Friday, February 28, 2014 9:16 PM
    Friday, February 28, 2014 9:15 PM