locked
Disadvantages of branch DP in secondary sites RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi all,

    Just looking to get some thoughts on the below setup:

    We have SCCM installed in a single site at the moment and due to licensing issues will not be installing any additional primary sites. The organisation has over 20 additonal sites. The machines are currently reporting to the primary site but we wish to push out software packages to the secondary sites. These additional sites all have at least one server running 2003 or above. My plan is to do the following:

    Configure the additonal sites as secondary sites and install branch distribution points and proxy managememt points on the same server. My understanding is that the WAN will be less heavily utilised as clients will communicate with the proxy management point in the secondary site which can in turn send the data to the primary management point in compressed form. Also, my understanding is that I can configure the branch DP to download the content from the standard DP in the primary site using BITS.

    Can you advise if what I am proposing is ok and if my understanding of the data flow mentioned above is correct?

    Many thanks

    Alistair

    Thursday, August 9, 2012 8:30 PM

Answers

  • I wouldn't use BDP's. It's a headache. Just use a standard DP instead.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jmarcum/|

    Thursday, August 9, 2012 8:43 PM
  • Hi,

    I agree with John.

    If you are installing a Secóndary site anyway I would use a Standard DP in every scenario, you can still throttle the replication traffic to that DP as it is on the Secondary site server and it is a much better solution. Clients can then use BITS to download from that DP and so on..

    regards,
    Jörgen


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

    Thursday, August 9, 2012 9:01 PM

All replies

  • I wouldn't use BDP's. It's a headache. Just use a standard DP instead.


    John Marcum | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jmarcum/|

    Thursday, August 9, 2012 8:43 PM
  • Hi,

    I agree with John.

    If you are installing a Secóndary site anyway I would use a Standard DP in every scenario, you can still throttle the replication traffic to that DP as it is on the Secondary site server and it is a much better solution. Clients can then use BITS to download from that DP and so on..

    regards,
    Jörgen


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

    Thursday, August 9, 2012 9:01 PM
  • Thanks for the replies. Interesting that you both advise to install a standard DP rather than branch DP so I will revise my plan. I guess the only disadvantage of this setup may be that since there is no branch DP to download from the standard using BITS, the packages will simply get pushed from the DP in primary site which would utilise the WAN connection more. If there is loss of connection during the package copy it would need to be downloaded again?

    Alistair

    Friday, August 10, 2012 11:26 AM
  • No, that's not what happens with a secondary site in the mix and is why a scondary site was recommended.. All (well, nearly all) traffic to (and from) secondary sites including package content is controlled by a sender. The sender compresses, throttles, and schedules this traffic -- the thorttling and scheduling is configurable on the sender for each secondary site. The sender also gracefully handles intermitent network issues. Package content is actually sent from the primary site server to the secondary site server and from the secondary to the DP via SMB although DPs in secondary sites are almost always colocated with the secondary site server. It is not sent from a DP.

    BDPs are just glorified clients and thus behave just like clients when aquiring content. One thing BDPs cannot do is deliver content to clients using BITS; however, DPs can so this is another advantage of using a DP.


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    Friday, August 10, 2012 2:14 PM
  • Jason, I think this is now making more sense to me, hopefully. Forgive me if I am wrong but from what you are saying am I right in thinking that ideally for remote sites I should create secondary sites as opposed to BDP's (I know a BDP can exist in a secondary site)? If content is downloaded and compressed using the sender then I really have no need for a BDP to download from the standard DP using BITS?
    Friday, August 10, 2012 9:40 PM
  • Correct.

    In general, I don't think you'll find anyone actually recommend using a BDP -- they have a lot of issues. So much so, the product group scrapped the technology behind them in ConfigMgr 2012.


    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    Friday, August 10, 2012 11:37 PM