locked
SCCM Hierarchy - Management point on different server from Primary? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi All,

    Another SCCM Hierarchy question as we're about to replace our existing hardware with new. We currently have a Primary server and four secondary servers that act as Management Points and aiding in content distribution. Around 8000 clients geographically dispersed across the globe.

    We're considering the need for the secondary sites and think we can remove their need when we move to the new hardware and migrate across to it. So we'll move to just a single Primary server for the site.

    My question is, would having 8000 clients reporting into the Primary server cause significant bottlenecks and/or load? Or should we setup another Secondary server to act as a management point? I think Kent Agerlund mentioned something in SCU the other day about distributing the management point role to another server.

    Thanks in advance!

    Phil

    Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:09 AM

All replies

  • Almost every role can be placed on a site system that is separate from the site server. This is done to add scalability and/or availability -- because many of these roles can have multiple instances. Also, separating them from the site server spreads the workload of the site out.

    So yes, this is perfectly valid. However, for remote locations, generally, the only role that you need at those locations to fully support the clients is a DP. Secondary sites come in to play when you have restricted bandwidth to a location and/or a high client count. Without knowing these details there's no way to make a choice between a secondary site and a DP. Ops in general should *not* be placed in remote locations.

    What exactly are you trying to achieve?


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

    • Proposed as answer by vipask Thursday, August 17, 2017 12:41 PM
    Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:39 AM
  • Thanks Jason.

    We're trying to reduce the infrastructure required by SCCM by taking out the Secondary sites we currently have but concerned what impact this might have. If all our clients are on reasonable bandwidth and there isn't a high count of them then maybe we can keep all roles on the one Primary server.  

    I know it's hard to say but would moving the Management Point or other roles off the Primary site have a significant reduction in workload on the Primary site? Or enough to make it worthwhile having another server?

    Thanks,

    Phil

    Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:21 AM
  • Hi,

    Install multiple management points at each primary site, and enable the sites to publish site data to your Active Directory infrastructure, and to DNS.

    Multiple management points help to load-balance the use of any single management point by multiple clients. In addition, you can install one or more database replicas for management points to decrease the CPU-intensive operations of the management point, and to increase the availability of this critical site system role.

    You can install only one management point in a secondary site, which must be located on the secondary site server. If this management point is unavailable, clients can fall back to using a management point in their assigned site.


    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Subscriber Support, contact tnmff@microsoft.com.

    Thursday, January 21, 2016 9:57 AM
  • "would moving the Management Point or other roles off the Primary site have a significant reduction in workload on the Primary site?"

    Yes, it would assuming you don't undersize them; however, how does that reduce your infrastructure? I'm not saying you should keep going with secondary sites, as mentioned, remote DPs are preferred are usually sufficient, but that doesn't reduce your infrastructure as you'll simply be swapping the secondary sites for DPs and adding MPs.


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

    Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:12 PM
  • "If this management point is unavailable, clients can fall back to using a management point in their assigned site."

    This is incorrect. If the MP in a secondary site is unavailable, clients using the secondary site due to boundaries will not fallback and be essentially orphaned until the MP is made available again or boundaries and boundary groups are adjusted and the clients rotate MPs which can take up to 25 hours.


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

    Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:14 PM
  • "Yes, it would assuming you don't undersize them; however, how does that reduce your infrastructure?"

    It will still reduce from the four secondary servers down to one so I would be happy with that. The point I'm trying to avoid is all the workload on one server and causing performance degradation because of it. If adding one server but dropping the need for the other three will increase performance on the Primary then I think that's our preferred solution.

    Friday, January 22, 2016 5:44 AM
  • "It will still reduce from the four secondary servers down to one so I would be happy with that."

    But you will still need (or should have) DPs at those remote locations so that's still a server there -- same same.


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

    Friday, January 22, 2016 4:50 PM