I saw this on 2Pint for free regarding SCCM reporting... http://2pintsoftware.com/all-products/
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Jason Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah – that’s one of the pains – the only way you really CAN tell is by > checking out the perfmon counters on the clients themselves. > > > > I guess that as that data is WMI’able you could gather it somehow > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Steve Whitcher > *Sent:* 28 May 2015 15:38 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mssms] BranchCache > > > > I have branchcache enabled on my distribution points here, although > honestly I don't have any measurements of how much WAN traffic it saves > us. I know it's used, as when I have occasion to go through client logs to > troubleshoot a deployment I sometimes see log entries that show it using > branchcache for packages. > > > > I probably should try to figure out just exactly how much data is being > distributed by branchcache instead of over the WAN, but at best that's a > project for the "spare time" list, and that's a long list. > > > > Steve > > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
