Why to avoid Multiple Primary Servers RRS feed

  • Question

  • I know the following issues:

    1. Huge admin overhead in managing OSD for 19 sites separately.
    2. Data replication between 19 Primary Sites and CAS will cause a lot of stress on the Network specially where the CAS is hosted.
    3. With 19 Primary Sites, there will be admin latency which will adversely affect every administration activity.
    4. Huge admin overhead in monitoring 19 different client settings.
    5. Roaming Clients will be talking to the MPs in their Primary Sites for Policy and uploading HW/SW scans over WAN.
    6. More hardware resources would be required for Primary Sites.

      Can someone give me more threatning issues than the ones stated above?

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:26 PM


All replies

  • Hi,

    - Using a CAS for delegating permissions is not an option as all permissions are global.

    If we turn the question around, Why would you consider using a CAS and 19 sites? What scenario are you considering?


    -- My System Center blog ccmexec.com -- Twitter @ccmexec

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:34 PM
  • Objective is to avoid replication of OSD content on WAN. Even pre-staging and copying pre-staged content at any time 24x7 is not allowed.


    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:37 PM
  • It would be useful to know how many clients in total you have in this scenario. The decision to deploy multiple sites (primary or secondary) is primarily based on how many clients need to be managed. Which edition of SQL will you be using (Enterprise or Standard) as this also affects how many clients can be supported by each primary site?

    From your notes it appears that the decision to deploy a CAS has already been made - what is the logic for this decision? (Number of Clients? / Separation?)

    Steven Hodson | http://www.stevenhodson.com | @_hodders

    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:39 PM
  • the number of clients is well under limits and is 20k. Hence DB is SQL 2012 Standard. The CAS decision is because regional IT for one of the region want to keep their OSD local and avoid WAN replication and this one makes sense as its a big site and they already have mature OSD system and we will migrate their objects to the new hierarchy. there are 18 more sites where OSD content needs to stay local as well but these are relatively smaller sites and hence I am recommending to rather use stand alone MDT instances there to keep stuff local and not have 18 primary sites for sites as small as 400 clients per location. So looking for more reasons to present to the client to not have 19 Primary sites.


    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 9:53 PM
  • When CAS-Primary replication breaks, it breaks hard and is often very painful to fix.

    Unfortunately, there is no good answer to this scenario though.

    When you say "needs to stay local", why? Simply because of bandwidth? Are there legal issues? Something else?

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

    Thursday, May 21, 2015 2:22 AM
  • No legal issues. Just bandwidth which is very poor and even prestaging is an issue for big files.

    Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:35 AM
  • Another reason to not use multiple primaries: think about updating the infrastructure to a new CU or SP. You have to apply/install it 20 times. 

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

    Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:46 AM