For that I would go with BranchCache, same effect as multicast (but different) but with basically zero failure rate.
Each machine will share to 3 other machines etc. So scales well, but yes, the switch gets busy… From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Juelich, Adam Sent: den 4 februari 2016 18:09 To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com Subject: Re: [mssms] RE: Setting up multicast Ours is on a 2008R2 box. It was slow and the failure rate was around 20% as well. Nothing like 70 machines failing after the 'format hard disk' step. Then you have to get on your good sneakers...... ----------------------------------------------- Adam Juelich Pulaski Community School District<http://www.pulaskischools.org> Client Management Specialist 920-822-6075 On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Kent, Mark <ken...@buffalostate.edu<mailto:ken...@buffalostate.edu>> wrote: It may have improved since we last used it. Our failure rate was around 20% so we had to drop it as it was impacting production. At the time this was on a Server 2008R2 box. WDS has I am sure has been updated a bit on Server 2012. Mark Kent (MCP) Sr. Desktop Systems Engineer Computing & Technology Services - SUNY Buffalo State From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com>] On Behalf Of Chris Barnes Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:50 AM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: [mssms] RE: Setting up multicast Sorry, need to clarify my statement. I never implemented Multi-cast, my example of the 10-12 machines at a time was showing that the default mode scales out better then people probably realize. Chris Barnes Coretek Services | Enterprise Consultant • 248.767.4415<tel:248.767.4415> cell • chris.bar...@coretekservices.com<mailto:chris.bar...@coretekservices.com> • http://www.coretekservices.com<http://www.coretekservices.com/> From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Kent, Mark Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:44 AM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: [mssms] RE: Setting up multicast Also, if you do choose to use multi-cast you really can’t use cheap switches. We tried it with some and they totally choked. There is some overhead they need to process and the cheap switches really didn’t have the guts to handle it. Mark Kent (MCP) Sr. Desktop Systems Engineer Computing & Technology Services - SUNY Buffalo State From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Chris Barnes Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 10:45 AM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: [mssms] RE: Setting up multicast I remember someone had a pretty extensive blog post regarding this (Jason Sandys maybe?), making a case that the breakeven for where multicast begins to make sense is in the 20-50+ nodes at a time range. I have been able to image 10-12 machines at a time on a 1GB link with a cheap switch (small backplane) with no issues, as during the 30-40 minute imaging process, data is only being transferred for a small portion of it. By the time you get all of the machines launched and running, where they are in the process is usually staggered enough that you only have 1-2 downloading the WIM file at any given time. Chris Barnes Coretek Services | Enterprise Consultant • 248.767.4415<tel:248.767.4415> cell • chris.bar...@coretekservices.com<mailto:chris.bar...@coretekservices.com> • http://www.coretekservices.com<http://www.coretekservices.com/> From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Kent, Mark Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 10:35 AM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: [mssms] RE: Setting up multicast Is your network that bad that you need to use this? I’ve found the results to be less than stellar. Others said the same thing at the time we tried using this. Mark Kent (MCP) Sr. Desktop Systems Engineer Computing & Technology Services - SUNY Buffalo State From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Corkill, Daniel Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 6:22 PM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: [mssms] Setting up multicast I’m looking into implementing multicast on all DPs where PXE is enabled. So far I’m reading the following information: http://blogs.technet.com/b/charlesa_us/archive/2015/06/25/setting-up-multicasting-in-configmgr-2012.aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh397406.aspx Some questions I have for those who have implemented it: 1. Are there any recommendations/best practices for the maximum clients and transfer rate settings? 2. Autocast vs scheduled - I’m leaning towards autocast because my understanding is that with scheduled in place, I won’t be able to image single machines (unless I decrease the scheduled start delay to 2 mins or something like that). 3. After implementing it, if I’m imaging two, three, four machines at once, how do I verify multicast is actually being used? Any other guidance people who have implemented it can recommend? Any gotchas? Daniel. ********************************************************************* This email, including any attachment, is confidential to the intended recipient. It may also be privileged and may be subject to copyright. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of the email. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived. Neither the Council nor the sender warrant that this email does not contain any viruses or other unsolicited items. This email is an informal Council communication. The Council only accepts responsibility for information sent under official letterhead and duly signed by, or on behalf of, the Chief Executive Officer. Privacy Collection Notice Logan City Council may collect your personal information, e.g. name, residential address, phone number etc, in order to conduct its business and/or meet its statutory obligations. The information will only be accessed by employees and/or Councillors of Logan City Council for Council business related activities only. If your personal information will be passed onto a third party, Council will advise you of this disclosure, the purpose of the disclosure and reason why. Your information will not be given to any other person or agency unless you have given us permission or we are required by law. ________________________________ The Pulaski Community School District does not discriminate on the basis of any characteristic protected under State or Federal law.
