locked
Client Site Membership RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi All,

    A potentially stupid question: I have an SCCM 2012 SP1 setup that is almost ready to go into production save for one issue; clients do not appear to be picking up their correct site membership...

    The system consists of three sites each one located in a different town: DC1, GP1 and LF1.  DC1 houses the only Primary Site server we have whilst the other two sites have one Secondary Site Server each.  Site Boundaries are defined by Active Directory Sites and all appears to be correct.

    The problems is that, regardless of at which site a computer is located and imaged, it always shows that it is a member of DC1 (the primary site) both locally in the Configuration Manager client and under devices in the SCCM console.  The task sequence used to image the computers specifies the appropriate site code and management point server for each site but this doesn't seem to have any affect.  Given that I'm using secondary site servers, is this behaviour expected?  Having never used secondary sites before, I'm not sure.  Otherwise, everything is working as expected and there are no errors...

    Cheers,

    Graeme

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:35 AM

Answers

  • Clients will always show that they are assigned to DC1 - clients cannot be assigned to secondary sites.  The only time you will see clients showing as belonging to secondary sites is when they do not have the client installed.

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

    • Marked as answer by Graeme Heel Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:47 AM
    Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:39 AM

All replies

  • Clients will always show that they are assigned to DC1 - clients cannot be assigned to secondary sites.  The only time you will see clients showing as belonging to secondary sites is when they do not have the client installed.

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

    • Marked as answer by Graeme Heel Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:47 AM
    Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:39 AM
  • Many thanks for your response, much appreciated.  This was what I thought, just needed confirmation...

    Cheers,

    Graeme

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:49 AM