locked
Should I use Pull DPs? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Management is not very happy with the use of standard DPs, because the Site Server doesn't use BITS to transfer the data out to the remote DPs over our VERY VERY slooooooooow WAN links.

    I was reading that Pull DPs do in fact use BITS and this is something that seems to be much more attractive. 

    A Pull DP is just like a standard DP in that a client can still pull the content from its content library, so I will not have to setup two DPs in a remote site, 1 Pull and 1 Standard DP, right?

    I already have one source DP setup at the central site location and the remote DPs will use that to pull from. 

    Am I missing anything here with my assessment and understanding of Pull DPs?

    Also, is it pretty easy to convert from a standard to a Pull DP?

    Thanks



    Friday, October 9, 2015 7:23 PM

Answers

  • Transferring content to normal DPs can be scheduled and throttled though with more granularity and control than with BITS though -- just use the Schedule and Rate Limits tabs on any (non-pull) DP.

    Converting to (and from) a Pull-DP is just a checkbox on the Pull DP tab and supplying the DP to Pull from. You will also need to configure some BITS limits somewhere however otherwise BITS isn't going to limit much.

    To answer the question in the title of this thread, no you shouldn't use pull DPs if all you need is to throttle content distribution traffic to a DP; you should instead use the built-in scheduling and rate limits capabilities.

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


    Friday, October 9, 2015 8:30 PM

All replies

  • Transferring content to normal DPs can be scheduled and throttled though with more granularity and control than with BITS though -- just use the Schedule and Rate Limits tabs on any (non-pull) DP.

    Converting to (and from) a Pull-DP is just a checkbox on the Pull DP tab and supplying the DP to Pull from. You will also need to configure some BITS limits somewhere however otherwise BITS isn't going to limit much.

    To answer the question in the title of this thread, no you shouldn't use pull DPs if all you need is to throttle content distribution traffic to a DP; you should instead use the built-in scheduling and rate limits capabilities.

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


    Friday, October 9, 2015 8:30 PM
  • I agree with Jason, Pull DP always use BITS mechanism  to download the content from DP to Pull DP.

    I would to recommend to configure Standard DP, if there is no security restriction to open SMB and RPC any, better to use standard DP with network throttle.


    Regards, kanna


    • Edited by Kannan CS Friday, October 9, 2015 9:28 PM
    Friday, October 9, 2015 9:27 PM
  • Okay so if standard DPs are the best option, then why even have Pull DPs in the first place?

    I mean what is the point? Just to offload processing from the Site Server and that's it?

    I thought BITS was better than SMB by far, is this not the case?

    Thanks

    Saturday, October 10, 2015 12:46 AM
  • Hi, 

    I would recommend watching this session by Microsoft content distribution engineers to deep dive how content distribution and the difference of the DP's

    https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=25ff5ff20f2d9090&id=25FF5FF20F2D9090%2181793&authkey=%21APvPrmz3XJ3KNg4

    (Thanks to Greg Ramsey and the NorthWest System Center User Group for uploading the session)

    Cheers,

    Harry

    Saturday, October 10, 2015 1:11 AM
  • Scalability is one reason. By offloading the content processing, you can have far more Pull DPs in a site than standard DPs. Thus, if you are larger enough to need more than 250 DPs in your site, PullDPs are one option. Also, PullDPs allow more complex network topologies that are not simply hub and spoke in nature.

    As for SMB vs. BITS, that's not an accurate comparison. Yes, standard DPs use SMB; however, ConfigMgr explicitly controls that SMB flow using the options set in the scheduling the rate limits tab to perform throttling in a much more controlled fashion than BITS in general. BITS also has many shortcomings -- specifically note that BITS was designed to prevent negatively affecting the user and is generally only aware of local bandwidth and not end-to-end bandwidth. That could spell bad things for a WAN link.


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

    Saturday, October 10, 2015 3:29 PM