locked
Clients not using Secondary Site Management Point RRS feed

 > 

  • Question

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I have deployed a Secondary Site to a regional campus in Europe that manages a small number of machines. I created boundaries and an associated boundary group that uses the Secondary Site for site assignment. I know that the clients should still show the parent Primary Site as the site being reported to, but I find that the clients in Europe are also using the Management Point installed on the primary site as well. The secondary site is geographically closer (it's in the same remote site) as the clients; as I understand it the closest MP should be chosen. Is this correct?

    Is it possible that if the clients were deployed prior to the secondary site being deployed, then that is the reason?

    Friday, March 1, 2013 9:14 PM

All replies

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    A couple of things here. Clients find MPs in secondary sites using boundaries in Content Location boundary groups. I know that sounds odd, but Site Assignment Boundary Groups are for Primary Site assignment only. Also, client's are never really assigned to secondary sites so it wouldn't/doesn't make sense to use site assignment boundaries for secondary sites.

    Also, "some" client communication to the MP in the primary is still required even with a secondary site and an MP at that secondary site in place (note that in 2012 having a secondary site without an MP is impossible). Secondary sites are *not* gateways.

    For reference: http://blog.configmgrftw.com/?p=453

    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com

    Friday, March 1, 2013 10:17 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    OK, makes sense. I did have the Content location set to the secondary but was still seeing the primary as the MP for the clients (which may be related to the sceond thing you noted).

    Followup: There are 30–40 clients total at this site and I have been thinking it makes more sense to just make it a DP. That is what MS suggests. Would anyone here disagree with that?

    Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:28 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Really depends on your connectivety between that location and your primary site server.  If you're not bandwidth contrained then a DP will work just fine.  You can throttle data to the DP as well.  We have secondaries because we are unfortunately extremely bandwidth contrained so I need to offset the client communication to the primary site with the secondary.
    Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:56 PM