I made it clear that I haven't used that option in SCCM so I would be wrong person to have a conversation over BCs so my comments are based on others experiences.
Having said that, it would be interesting to see in the greater SCCM community how often is implemented. Cesar A On May 28, 2015 7:24 AM, "David Jones" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > 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]] *On Behalf Of *elsalvoz >> *Sent:* 28 May 2015 14:27 >> *To:* [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]> wrote: >> >> There is not a whole lot written about this. Is anyone here using it? >> Your thoughts? >> >> >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
