That is correct
Remember that with Branch Cache in order for ANY client to download content it must first go to the Branch Cache server across the WAN regardless. It will then get a redirect to try the clients on the local subnet. Since the client has to go across the WAN anyhow there is a cost at which point you might conclude that you may as well download the content while you are there. Note therefore that Branch Cache does not get implemented as an alternate content provider and is part of the standard CM content access process to a real DP – hence the WAN connect. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Jones Sent: 28 May 2015 15:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mssms] BranchCache Thanks for the feedback. I have one question about a blog post at 2pint. Has anyone found this to be a problem? Does this mean that for the very small files within a package all computers will have to go back over the WAN to a DP to get them? Dave ==== WARNING TEST THIS FIRST OR WE’LL ALL BE DOOMED I TELL YOU! BranchCache has a built-in filesize limit, under which it will ignore content. By default that is set to 64k, which is fine for a lot of scenarios. If, however your content contains lots of small files, (think xml, config files, sharepoint, web pages, need I go on!?), then you might want to implement this little registry hack. So, go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\PeerDistKM\Parameters)- on your BC server. The value that you need to change is MinContentLength You do need to cycle the BranchCache service for this to take effect so bear in mind that you will lose your existing BC content hashes and will have to recreate them. Set this to something smaller than the default of 64k, then do some testing to see if your wee files are indeed being cached – don’t just throttle it right down straight away! I’ve had it down to 4096 (4k) and it behaves perfectly well, but be aware that changing this setting can and will have an effect on BranchCache performance so tread lightly. Cheers! Phil 2Pint On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Jason Wallace <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: I would have to disagree with you on that. Branch Cache does indeed work well and performs as expected. There are certainly some pieces where OneSite and Nomad offer functionality that is plain not provided within Branch Cache but generally with Branch Cache you configure it once on the devices and it plain works. While Branch Cache Regards “intensive development” Branch Cache was introduced in Windows VISTA and has been included and supported in the Windows family ever since. The developers have done a good, sound job and the feature is largely without issue. A reasonable and responsible recommendation is to evaluate products alongside other solutions and to propose the solution that best meets your customer’s budget and needs. FWIW I have deployed a Branch Cache solution to an estate with 1400 sites globally and I presently support a CM2012R2 estate of 22,000 devices running almost exclusively on Branch Cache and an organisation considerably larger than this with OneSite. Perhaps you’d like to point out where you feel Branch Cache is inferior and we can then approach matters constructively Jason From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of elsalvoz Sent: 28 May 2015 14:27 To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mssms] BranchCache It doesn't work well or as advertised that's why many do not use it, the return is not worth the headache. This I've heard from colleagues and this list since I haven't tried it personally in production. The recommendation is to use 3rd party tools provider like 1e or adaptiva that have done intensive development on their tools. Cesar A On May 28, 2015 6:19 AM, "David Jones" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: There is not a whole lot written about this. Is anyone here using it? Your thoughts? Dave
