Naaah, if so you are pretty likely to have beefy links between them, otherwise you would be getting other pains. Unless your network team are idiots…
But you are right from a theoretical point that it can stretch several buildings etc. The protocol is very well designed in regards to this, so if you have more than 10? Clients it’s not 100% that all of them will respond depending on the algorithm. //A From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Miller, Todd Sent: den 29 juni 2016 21:39 To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com Subject: RE: [External] RE: [mssms] BranchCache, ConfigMgr, and PRO Sku I wonder how this works if there are vLANs/broadcast domains. I think we might have some subnets that stretch across multiple building cores and switches. It could be trouble if clients who think they are on the same subnet start sending traffic across from switch to switch. I am not a network engineer by any means, but I think it is not correct to assume that clients on the same subnet can talk to each other with zero impact on other network segments—source and destination can be on the same subnet and the traffic between them could go over more than one switch and the network backbone. With vLANs you are not guaranteed to be on the same switch and this inter-client communication could flood the links between switches if enough of the traffic was not contained within the same switch. (right?) From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Bradley, Matt Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 8:32 AM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [External] RE: [mssms] BranchCache, ConfigMgr, and PRO Sku Don’t forget the other Win7 BITS hotfix that fixes it if it goes too slow. It’s the Goldilocks combo…one is too fast, the other is too slow, but the one after the patches is juuust right. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2732072 From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Phil Wilcock Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 2:08 AM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: [External] RE: [mssms] BranchCache, ConfigMgr, and PRO Sku In Current Branch fairly sure FOREGROUND is no longer used. Previously it was the default for user initiated downloads. Policy wise – you should use the ‘Setup a Work Schedule’ and ‘Setup a Maintenance Schedule’ GPOs You MUST enable the checkbox in the Work schedule that says ‘Ignore Bandwidth limits if source and destination are on the same subnet’. Otherwise local BranchCache transfers will happen at the throttled rate. Also if you are on Win7 you need to make sure that you have https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2863374 or BITS sometimes stops caring about Policy and goes full speed When setting a speed over 2048 Kbit/s set the policy to use Mb instead of Kb. Finally, always enabled DeDupe on the DP – DeDupe + BranchCache rules! Cheers Senior From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld Sent: 29 June 2016 06:18 To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache, ConfigMgr, and PRO Sku Think even FOREGROUND is gone after 2 BITS supporters ranted about it… Senior can you confirm? From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys Sent: den 29 juni 2016 01:40 To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache, ConfigMgr, and PRO Sku You sure about this one. Isn’t it foreground if user initiated, background for deadline initiated? J From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Michael Niehaus Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:12 PM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache, ConfigMgr, and PRO Sku There are two BITS bandwidth policies, one for content retrieved from the server and another for content retrieved from a peer. Limiting the server traffic is fine, but you’ll want the peer traffic to run at higher speed, since it doesn’t impact the rest of the network (just on that one segment). Also note that these BITS policies only apply to background transfers, not foreground ones. ConfigMgr “required” deployments use foreground BITS jobs, while “available” deployments use background BITS jobs. Thanks, -Michael From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Jay Marsett Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 2:44 AM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: Re: [mssms] BranchCache, ConfigMgr, and PRO Sku So much great feedback! We were contemplating utilizing a pretty slow footprint for BITS policy, 1-2MB let's say, across the board, and then narrow that bandwidth further using networking equipment, where appropriate. Anyone else doing something similar? Thanks On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:29 AM, David Jones <dkjones9...@gmail.com<mailto:dkjones9...@gmail.com>> wrote: 6am-6pm 2mb, full at night On Jun 28, 2016 9:50 AM, "Jimmy Martin" <jimmy.mar...@bmhcc.org<mailto:jimmy.mar...@bmhcc.org>> wrote: I know it’s highly dependent on underlying network capabilities, but what do you (collective you) use for your bits transfer rate settings? Jimmy Martin (901) 227-8209<tel:%28901%29%20227-8209> From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>] On Behalf Of David Jones Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 2:00 PM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: Re: [mssms] BranchCache, ConfigMgr, and PRO Sku That is exactly what we do. 35000 clients. Have had no complaints. But what does that mean in the big scheme? You could right click any client in the local network of all the sites and make them a DP. We were doing before Branchcache. On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Phil Wilcock <ph...@2pintsoftware.com<mailto:ph...@2pintsoftware.com>> wrote: Works fine, PRO is supported and always has been, just do it! https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt613461.aspx#bkmk_os<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__technet.microsoft.com_en-2Dus_library_mt613461.aspx-23bkmk-5Fos&d=CwMFaQ&c=NwimJEPcMuFfAJV6iz0C4Q&r=fmX3K5VcrxX3Cfd4TmGGXvjAEVAsqB03O3gvuJE7gdY&m=r3MqgjQbNaYBffhV9c4ZN1l8D71UW1K8VXyn98_vBuc&s=aaV0wGpEWTXQkjS3O8EweUKdXVAvp46WXQJTCY8bmW8&e=> From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>] On Behalf Of Jay Parekh Sent: 24 June 2016 14:45 To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: [mssms] BranchCache, ConfigMgr, and PRO Sku Posting for my colleague. Some reason he's post here is not coming through. Basically comes down to a client is looking to deploy a net new SCCM environment. They have 400 sites but the CTO doesn't want servers (DPs) at the sites and he will not pay for Nomad or OneSite. Also they are running Win 7 Pro on the client side. They want to see if anyone has tried a large CM deployment without local DPs and just utilizing BranchCache/BITs. Hey guys, wanted to ask a couple of questions about what we are seeing in the field with BranchCache, ConfigMgr and the PRO SKU of Windows. It is my understanding that Windows PRO editions can be configured to utilize BranchCache in a BITS only operating mode (which seems to be fine for Configuration Manager); my questions, 1. Are we seeing it appear much in the field? Are many of you using BranchCache in mixed Pro and Enterprise SKU environments, or PRO SKU only environments? 2. And more importantly, is it supportable? E.G., Will Microsoft validate and support a configuration that intentionally utilizes this seeming hole in the "BranchCache is an Enterprise feature" conundrum? This message and any files transmitted with it may contain legally privileged, confidential, or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not permitted to use, copy, or forward it, in whole or in part without the express consent of the sender. Please notify the sender of the error by reply email, disregard the foregoing messages, and delete it immediately. P Please consider the environment before printing this email... ________________________________ Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. ________________________________
