Hi Phil Thanks for the correction on protocol. To explain (and this is my understanding amid the confusion that is the documentation) what I was trying to say:
The functional difference between Pro and Enterprise is that in Enterprise Branchcache is able to leverage BITS over SMB while in Pro this is limited to just HTTP. Of course this is all pretty much irrelevant for CM operation as the content is accessed from a DP via HTTP. One thing that my BranchCache customer has not done is to implement this on their SUPs. What's your take on doing this? > On 28 May 2015, at 22:50, Phil Wilcock <[email protected]> wrote: > > Phew! Hate getting to a thread late.. > > Interesting reading down this thread. What it does highlight is the way that > BranchCache is misunderstood – and I think that MS must shoulder some of the > blame for that J > > So, yes it works fine across many thousands of sites. > And yes, Server 2012 works better than 2008 as a content server – with 2012 > you get the added bonus of Dedup + BranchCache too. > It works fine on Windows Pro versions, because it is BITS (not http) that is > ‘BranchCache aware’ – and it is BITS that SCCM uses so you’re fine. > You can also use it in TS/OSD/WinPE (with some free tools from us – we just > added Win10 support too) > If you have Win 7 clients with Server 2012 it’s not quite as efficient (V1 > hashing isn’t as efficient as V2 (Win8.x) hashing) but still works fine. > Yes tiny files have to be retrieved over the WAN as there’s a tradeoff in > efficiency – but as the blog states, it can be tweaked and works fine. > > Finally – feel free to email me offline if you have any Q’s around > BranchCache/BITS etc. > > Cheers > > Phil > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Roland Janus > Sent: 28 May 2015 18:18 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache > > Andreas didn’t chime in yet J > > Basically on 2008 > > 1. If there is no hash calculated yet (which is required), the first > client triggers the calculation when downloading (into SCCM cache), doesn’t > populate branchcache > 2. The 2nd client downloads into the cache and sccm > 3. The 3rd client can use the 2nd > 4. The first will never have it unless it has to download again. > > You see? > > Worst of all. Once the server is rebooted, the hash is gone, start over… > Whatever they were thinking then. > > 2012 doesn’t do that. > > Overall, it’s basically a no brainer once implemented and it will save (a lot > of) bandwidth potentially. > > -R > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Sean Pomeroy > Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2015 17:53 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mssms] BranchCache > > What does server 2008 R2 vs 2012 have to do with it? > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:41 AM David Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > We have 2008R2 > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Roland Janus <[email protected]> > wrote: > Most importantly: While windows 7 is fine, you really need server 2012 for > the DPs. > If you’re stuck with 2008, that’s another story. > > -R > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of elsalvoz > Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2015 15:27 > > 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 > > > > >
