locked
Design question regarding location of Management Points in a new SCCM2012 topology RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi,

    We are in the early stages of designing a new SCCM2012 topology but I have a question regarding Management Points.

    Our head office is in London and we have satellite offices at various locations around the world.  (None of these offices have more than 100 clients).

    The plan is to have one Standalone Primary in London and DPs at each of the remote sites (preferable two per site for resilience).  I was also planning on making each DP a Management Point again for resilience.  (I believe I am limited to 10 MPs per site though).

    I know that I can set boundaries on the DP so that only clients on certain subnets will use that DP, however is there a way I can do this for the Management points as well?  For example is there anything to stop a Hong Kong client from using a London MP if all clients belong to the same site?   I know that you can assign a MP during client installation but as I understand it this does not mean that the client will necessarily use this MP in the future.

    I would be grateful for any advice.

    Thanks

    Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:15 AM

Answers

  • No. Multiple management points are not for anything except for availability and cross-forest scenarios. Client selection of MPs within a forest is essentially random.

    Assigning an MP during installation does not force a client to use an MP and does not guarantee that MP will be used by the client after installation (just restating what you said to enforce it).

    Client to MP traffic in general is very light and rarely worth troubling over. If you are truly concerned about it, you must use a secondary site.


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    • Marked as answer by LinJack Monday, April 8, 2013 8:43 AM
    Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:30 PM
  • only place MP's in the main data center. You can't control the MP's that a client connects to. You might also consider configuring the MP's with a database replica.

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

    • Marked as answer by LinJack Monday, April 8, 2013 8:43 AM
    Friday, April 5, 2013 7:38 AM

All replies

  • No. Multiple management points are not for anything except for availability and cross-forest scenarios. Client selection of MPs within a forest is essentially random.

    Assigning an MP during installation does not force a client to use an MP and does not guarantee that MP will be used by the client after installation (just restating what you said to enforce it).

    Client to MP traffic in general is very light and rarely worth troubling over. If you are truly concerned about it, you must use a secondary site.


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    • Marked as answer by LinJack Monday, April 8, 2013 8:43 AM
    Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:30 PM
  • Thanks Jason.  We are purely introducing more MPs for resilience as we are using virtual apps and as I understand it if the Primary site server becomes unavailable the clients can continue to function temporarily as long as they can reach an MP (even though they won't get any new policies until the site is available again.)

    So consequently as the clients could contact any MP and the traffic is light I guess we just need to make sure that we have a few MPs dotted around at various locations.  Are there any considerations regarding how many and where they are located?

    Thursday, April 4, 2013 2:59 PM
  • only place MP's in the main data center. You can't control the MP's that a client connects to. You might also consider configuring the MP's with a database replica.

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

    • Marked as answer by LinJack Monday, April 8, 2013 8:43 AM
    Friday, April 5, 2013 7:38 AM
  • Thanks Jason and Kent for your help.
    Monday, April 8, 2013 8:44 AM