RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow boundary?

2015-01-24 Thread Roland Janus 
Hm, that may get me to the same though.

If you see a chance that a TS-step somehow could return that and if only as
an error.

 

But usually a TS is checked as a whole and if something isn’t available it
fails in general, so maybe it can’t be done.

 

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com]
On Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld
Sent: Samstag, 24. Januar 2015 17:02
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

Ok, will reply to only this one. So looked into it a bit, and as far as I
can tell the TS will never actually know if it’s on a slow or remote
boundary. Instead its each package referenced by the sequence that will be
considered fast or slow, and the TS advert/deployment info will determine
the right run/download action.

 

This is why you can start a TS but run into an error, since there is no
content available for whatever package being referenced. All packages are
checked at the start of the TS, and as far I can tell, there is no info
whether that package is local or not outside the logs. 

 

But still think you can get the MP to tell you whether the client is in a
fast or slow network boundary, but that doesn’t really apply to the
deployment settings as packages could still be local to that boundary. 

 

I might be wrong though, a bit confused after having 2 Pints for lunch. But
will check the SDK tonight and see what’s possible.

 

//A

http://2pintsoftware.com

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: den 24 januari 2015 15:04
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com  
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

That’s like plan B. I would prefer to use what CM already knows, the
boundaries.

You would prefer that to, right? :)

 

-Roland

 

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marable, Mike
Sent: Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2015 15:23
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com  
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

We had to use a script to sort it out.  We have a number of slow site
boundaries, all IP range based.  

 

What we have done is to export out the boundaries into a CSV with starting
address, ending address and name.  During the task sequence we run a script
that takes the IP address of the machine and looks it up within the CSV
file.  If it find that its IP address falls within one of the boundaries we
set a task sequence variable that we can key off of showing that it is
inside a slow boundary.

 

There may be more elegant ways of doing it but it works for us.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:17 AM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com  
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

Bump?

 

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2015 15:03
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com  
Subject: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow
boundary?

 

You guys have an idea on that?

Does a running TS provide somewhere if it is running using a slow boundary?

 

-Roland

 

 

 

**
Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be
used for urgent or sensitive issues

RE: [mssms] RE: OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

2015-01-24 Thread Robert Schlichting 
Now that comment I agree with   “So its not the number of apps that matter, 
it’s the type & quality. “

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 12:51 AM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

There are loads of apps on Windows Phone, most of them are shit though. So its 
not the number of apps that matter, it’s the type & quality.

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of 
rodtr...@myitforum.com
Sent: den 23 januari 2015 23:19
To: SMS
Subject: Re: [mssms] RE: OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

I thought it was April Fool’s already when I read that.

From: Kent, Mark
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎January‎ ‎23‎, ‎2015 ‎4‎:‎28‎ ‎PM
To: SMS

Their CEO just came up with a solution to solve the lack of apps on Windows 
Phone: Net Neutrality.

Mark Kent (MCP)
Sr. Desktop Systems Engineer
Computing & Technology Services - SUNY Buffalo State

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Rod Trent
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:19 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

…running on a Blackberry

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:15 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

Maybe this year will be the one Linux makes it….

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Rod Trent
Sent: den 23 januari 2015 20:11
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

P.S. I have my feelers into some Microsoft folks for clarification. The slow 
response means they haven’t decided yet.

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Phil Wilcock
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:06 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [mssms] RE: OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

J

I think there’s going to be some confusion round this for a while.

My question was aimed at the possibility of MS giving an incentive to corps to 
jump from Win7 -> Win10 in the same way they have consumers..

http://blogs.gartner.com/jonah-kowall/2015/01/23/the-truth-about-microsofts-new-licensing-change-guest-post/

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marcum, John
Sent: 23 January 2015 18:25
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [mssms] RE: OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

"free"??? I think it's more like "One of the benefits of purchasing Software 
Assurance is the ability to always run the latest operating system" It's 
definitely not "free"

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Michael Niehaus
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 12:22 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [mssms] RE: OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

Software Assurance customers always get free upgrades J

Thanks,
-Michael

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Phil Wilcock
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:13 AM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [mssms] OT: Windows 10 and Software Assurance

Anyone heard any firm info on what the deal is gonna be for SA customers with 
regards to Win10 ugrades?

Or is it TBC..

Tia

Phil 2Pint



Phil Wilcock
2Pint Software
http://2pintsoftware.com

RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow boundary?

2015-01-24 Thread Andreas Hammarskjöld 
Ok, will reply to only this one. So looked into it a bit, and as far as I can 
tell the TS will never actually know if it's on a slow or remote boundary. 
Instead its each package referenced by the sequence that will be considered 
fast or slow, and the TS advert/deployment info will determine the right 
run/download action.

This is why you can start a TS but run into an error, since there is no content 
available for whatever package being referenced. All packages are checked at 
the start of the TS, and as far I can tell, there is no info whether that 
package is local or not outside the logs.

But still think you can get the MP to tell you whether the client is in a fast 
or slow network boundary, but that doesn't really apply to the deployment 
settings as packages could still be local to that boundary.

I might be wrong though, a bit confused after having 2 Pints for lunch. But 
will check the SDK tonight and see what's possible.

//A
http://2pintsoftware.com

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: den 24 januari 2015 15:04
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow 
boundary?

That's like plan B. I would prefer to use what CM already knows, the boundaries.
You would prefer that to, right? :)

-Roland


From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marable, Mike
Sent: Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2015 15:23
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow 
boundary?

We had to use a script to sort it out.  We have a number of slow site 
boundaries, all IP range based.

What we have done is to export out the boundaries into a CSV with starting 
address, ending address and name.  During the task sequence we run a script 
that takes the IP address of the machine and looks it up within the CSV file.  
If it find that its IP address falls within one of the boundaries we set a task 
sequence variable that we can key off of showing that it is inside a slow 
boundary.

There may be more elegant ways of doing it but it works for us.

Mike



From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:17 AM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow 
boundary?

Bump?


From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2015 15:03
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow 
boundary?

You guys have an idea on that?
Does a running TS provide somewhere if it is running using a slow boundary?

-Roland




**
Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be 
used for urgent or sensitive issues

RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow boundary?

2015-01-24 Thread Roland Janus 
That's like plan B. I would prefer to use what CM already knows, the
boundaries.

You would prefer that to, right? :)

 

-Roland

 

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com]
On Behalf Of Marable, Mike
Sent: Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2015 15:23
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

We had to use a script to sort it out.  We have a number of slow site
boundaries, all IP range based.  

 

What we have done is to export out the boundaries into a CSV with starting
address, ending address and name.  During the task sequence we run a script
that takes the IP address of the machine and looks it up within the CSV
file.  If it find that its IP address falls within one of the boundaries we
set a task sequence variable that we can key off of showing that it is
inside a slow boundary.

 

There may be more elegant ways of doing it but it works for us.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:17 AM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com  
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

Bump?

 

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2015 15:03
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com  
Subject: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow
boundary?

 

You guys have an idea on that?

Does a running TS provide somewhere if it is running using a slow boundary?

 

-Roland

 

 

 

**
Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be
used for urgent or sensitive issues

RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow boundary?

2015-01-24 Thread Roland Janus 
Not for what I want to do.

Simplified: 

 

A remote site is defined as slow, but allowed to run a OSD-TS.

If that TS is started, it figures, hey you’re on a slow connection, are you
sure?

 

Not really what I want to do, but basically the TS should behave differently
based on that.

 

What do you think, can the client know?

 

-R

 

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com]
On Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld
Sent: Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2015 17:42
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

Easy workaround comes to mind, create 2 deployments, one for fast and one
for slow?

 

//A

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Ratliff
Sent: den 22 januari 2015 17:36
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

I assume Roland is asking for both, post-client instal, and pre. :)

 

Daniel Ratliff

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:33 AM
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

Are we in WinPE?

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Ratliff
Sent: den 22 januari 2015 17:31
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

The client yes, but what everything before the client is installed?

 

Daniel Ratliff

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:27 AM
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

The client should know! When I wrote the BranchCache reporting engine I
think I stumbled across it in WMI somewhere. If you really need it I can see
if I can dig it up.

 

//A

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marable, Mike
Sent: den 22 januari 2015 15:40
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

No, it was all tied to Nomad.

 

If a machine was found to be in a slow site boundary that would trigger all
of the Nomad actions (installing the client in WinPE, pre-caching content,
using Peer Backup Assistant, etc.)

 

If the script found that the IP address of the machine fell within one of
the IP ranges of our slow boundaries we would set a task sequence variable
“SlowSite” to TRUE.  Then all of the Nomad related actions would key off of
that variable.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Ratliff
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:26 AM
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

What did you do in the TS? Kill it?

 

Daniel Ratliff

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marable, Mike
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:23 AM
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

We had to use a script to sort it out.  We have a number of slow site
boundaries, all IP range based.  

 

What we have done is to export out the boundaries into a CSV with starting
address, ending address and name.  During the task sequence we run a script
that takes the IP address of the machine and looks it up within the CSV
file.  If it find that its IP address falls within one of the boundaries we
set a task sequence variable that we can key off of showing that it is
inside a slow boundary.

 

There may be more elegant ways of doing it but it works for us.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [

RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a slow boundary?

2015-01-24 Thread Roland Janus 
Yeah, actually I do :)

 

If it’s in WMI somewhere, it likely is always there, right?

The client knows about it, doesn’t it, when it figures that it doesn’t have
access to content on a DP?

 

-R

 

 

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com]
On Behalf Of Daniel Ratliff
Sent: Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2015 17:36
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

I assume Roland is asking for both, post-client instal, and pre. :)

 

Daniel Ratliff

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:33 AM
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

Are we in WinPE?

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Ratliff
Sent: den 22 januari 2015 17:31
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

The client yes, but what everything before the client is installed?

 

Daniel Ratliff

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:27 AM
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

The client should know! When I wrote the BranchCache reporting engine I
think I stumbled across it in WMI somewhere. If you really need it I can see
if I can dig it up.

 

//A

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marable, Mike
Sent: den 22 januari 2015 15:40
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

No, it was all tied to Nomad.

 

If a machine was found to be in a slow site boundary that would trigger all
of the Nomad actions (installing the client in WinPE, pre-caching content,
using Peer Backup Assistant, etc.)

 

If the script found that the IP address of the machine fell within one of
the IP ranges of our slow boundaries we would set a task sequence variable
“SlowSite” to TRUE.  Then all of the Nomad related actions would key off of
that variable.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Ratliff
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:26 AM
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

What did you do in the TS? Kill it?

 

Daniel Ratliff

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marable, Mike
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:23 AM
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

We had to use a script to sort it out.  We have a number of slow site
boundaries, all IP range based.  

 

What we have done is to export out the boundaries into a CSV with starting
address, ending address and name.  During the task sequence we run a script
that takes the IP address of the machine and looks it up within the CSV
file.  If it find that its IP address falls within one of the boundaries we
set a task sequence variable that we can key off of showing that it is
inside a slow boundary.

 

There may be more elegant ways of doing it but it works for us.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:17 AM
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Can a Task Sequence determine if the client is in a
slow boundary?

 

Bump?

 

 

From:  
listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ 
mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Roland Janus
Sent: Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2015 15:03
To:   mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [mss

RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 2012R2 CU3 clients

2015-01-24 Thread Phil Wilcock 
Oh, and also…

Are you using any kind of throttling with BITS – i.e either through SCCM or 
Policy? We would recommend it, and BITS behaves better when throttled – 
especially over slow links.
Here’s why:
BITS background transfers achieve their desired throttled download rate by 
splitting a file download into a series of range requests. So the size and 
frequency of the range requests dictates the throttled download rate. BITS can 
only use BranchCache after retrieving the hashes for a given range request so 
the speed of the range requests dictates the speed of BranchCache. In other 
words, set a throttle rate and you’ve more chance of giving the server a chance 
to get the hashing completed in time to make use of BranchCache..



From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of Andreas Hammarskjöld
Sent: 24 January 2015 09:23
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 
2012R2 CU3 clients

As Senior finally remembered (maybe add this to the FAQ?) is that the BC API 
squirts(!) back a 311 error if the file does not meet the requirement of being 
a BranchCache enabled file. There are a few reasons why this can happen, most 
likely is that the file is too small.

About the hash generation, if the client starts the download there is some code 
in there that is supposed to kick in and then tell the client that it’s time to 
switch to BranchCache. The client then is supposed to get the “partial” hash 
i.e. anything that is left of the file to download will be BranchCache enabled 
and could be shared with PC2. If you are on a fast link, the server won’t have 
had time to generate the hash until the file is downloaded. If you do the same 
thing on a 2Mb/s pipe, it works better. But we have seen some cases where this 
doesn’t always work, but not enough to action it.

We have 3 suggestions for this scenario:


1.   When you are distribution a package to your organization, typically 
the larger client base is on good connections, so they will trigger the hash 
generation before slower WAN clients come in to get it.

2.   Also, in a typical production environment the built in slowness of the 
WAN will sort this out, as the hash will be generated in time to still make the 
DL efficient, so not many bytes will cross the wire until the hash is done.

3.   If you are still seeing issues with this, and we suspect the Win7 
implementation of this is extra flaky (or not working) then you can trigger an 
automatic hash creation using our HashiBashi tool. We had great plans for 
sorting this out, but stopped as out testing showed that it was only really in 
a POC environment where you saw the issue. But if needed, I will add in the 
functionality to trigger hash creation on package updates.

Ps. Since your DP is 2008 R2, it will also loose the hashes on reboot, so might 
be worth that we explore the HashiBashi toolset to combat this.

Best regards,

//Andreas

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Phil Wilcock
Sent: den 24 januari 2015 09:47
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 
2012R2 CU3 clients

Oh, and just remembered – Event 311 is when the file is too small for 
BranchCache – minimum size is 64k – you CAN lower this value but be careful, 
config in the registry and pretty sure it wouldn’t be supported but I have it 
tweaked down to 4k on my test rig:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\PeerDistKM\Parameters


Cheers

Phil

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Phil Wilcock
Sent: 24 January 2015 08:39
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 
2012R2 CU3 clients

George,

Welcome to the confusing and crazy world of BranchCache and BITS. Here’s a 
couple of pointers. Rest assured that it can all work pretty effectively once 
you get the hang of things.

Firstly, you need to understand how BranchCache hashes figure in all of this. 
Until a PC has the hash of the segment that it is downloading, it can’t share 
that segment with other peers, and the content won’t even be in the BranchCache 
Cache. So that first download that you see from PC1 will be a non-BranchCache 
enabled download as the hash won’t be available on the server yet. You can get 
the server to generate hashes in advance – on Server 2012 you can use PS but in 
your case you can download our HashiBashi tool which will do the same. - 
http://2pintsoftware.com/products/hashibashi/?portfolioID=10530

If the hash is not pre-created then it is the SECOND PC that does the download 
that will get the hash and therefore be able to share the files.
(All this works

RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 2012R2 CU3 clients

2015-01-24 Thread Andreas Hammarskjöld 
As Senior finally remembered (maybe add this to the FAQ?) is that the BC API 
squirts(!) back a 311 error if the file does not meet the requirement of being 
a BranchCache enabled file. There are a few reasons why this can happen, most 
likely is that the file is too small.

About the hash generation, if the client starts the download there is some code 
in there that is supposed to kick in and then tell the client that it’s time to 
switch to BranchCache. The client then is supposed to get the “partial” hash 
i.e. anything that is left of the file to download will be BranchCache enabled 
and could be shared with PC2. If you are on a fast link, the server won’t have 
had time to generate the hash until the file is downloaded. If you do the same 
thing on a 2Mb/s pipe, it works better. But we have seen some cases where this 
doesn’t always work, but not enough to action it.

We have 3 suggestions for this scenario:


1.   When you are distribution a package to your organization, typically 
the larger client base is on good connections, so they will trigger the hash 
generation before slower WAN clients come in to get it.

2.   Also, in a typical production environment the built in slowness of the 
WAN will sort this out, as the hash will be generated in time to still make the 
DL efficient, so not many bytes will cross the wire until the hash is done.

3.   If you are still seeing issues with this, and we suspect the Win7 
implementation of this is extra flaky (or not working) then you can trigger an 
automatic hash creation using our HashiBashi tool. We had great plans for 
sorting this out, but stopped as out testing showed that it was only really in 
a POC environment where you saw the issue. But if needed, I will add in the 
functionality to trigger hash creation on package updates.

Ps. Since your DP is 2008 R2, it will also loose the hashes on reboot, so might 
be worth that we explore the HashiBashi toolset to combat this.

Best regards,

//Andreas

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of Phil Wilcock
Sent: den 24 januari 2015 09:47
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 
2012R2 CU3 clients

Oh, and just remembered – Event 311 is when the file is too small for 
BranchCache – minimum size is 64k – you CAN lower this value but be careful, 
config in the registry and pretty sure it wouldn’t be supported but I have it 
tweaked down to 4k on my test rig:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\PeerDistKM\Parameters


Cheers

Phil

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Phil Wilcock
Sent: 24 January 2015 08:39
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 
2012R2 CU3 clients

George,

Welcome to the confusing and crazy world of BranchCache and BITS. Here’s a 
couple of pointers. Rest assured that it can all work pretty effectively once 
you get the hang of things.

Firstly, you need to understand how BranchCache hashes figure in all of this. 
Until a PC has the hash of the segment that it is downloading, it can’t share 
that segment with other peers, and the content won’t even be in the BranchCache 
Cache. So that first download that you see from PC1 will be a non-BranchCache 
enabled download as the hash won’t be available on the server yet. You can get 
the server to generate hashes in advance – on Server 2012 you can use PS but in 
your case you can download our HashiBashi tool which will do the same. - 
http://2pintsoftware.com/products/hashibashi/?portfolioID=10530

If the hash is not pre-created then it is the SECOND PC that does the download 
that will get the hash and therefore be able to share the files.
(All this works much better in SRV2012 where the server sends a 
‘MakeHashRequest’ back in the http header – although BITS is still too dumb to 
act on this even in Win8.1)

BITS event log – also check for Event 4 – which is the end of the Job and tells 
you the proportion of files that came from the server vs local peers.

Network latency – has nothing to do with HTTP downloads, which is what BITS is 
using here.

As far as clients getting content from the server instead of peers – this can 
happen  if all clients try to get the content at the same time.
IF your content has 10 files for instance – SCCM client gets the manifest, but 
then seems to randomize the order in which the files are added to the BITS job.
So this can mean that BITS on PC1 will be attempting to get FILE1 at the same 
time as PC2 is trying to grab FILE10

BITS + BranchCache behaves best (especially with SRV2008 and Win7) if the 
client start times are staggered so that certain clients can get a head start 
on the content. Id an ideal situation you might want to make a collection of 
‘Beachhead’ PC’s that will

RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 2012R2 CU3 clients

2015-01-24 Thread Phil Wilcock 
Oh, and just remembered – Event 311 is when the file is too small for 
BranchCache – minimum size is 64k – you CAN lower this value but be careful, 
config in the registry and pretty sure it wouldn’t be supported but I have it 
tweaked down to 4k on my test rig:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\PeerDistKM\Parameters


Cheers

Phil

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of Phil Wilcock
Sent: 24 January 2015 08:39
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 
2012R2 CU3 clients

George,

Welcome to the confusing and crazy world of BranchCache and BITS. Here’s a 
couple of pointers. Rest assured that it can all work pretty effectively once 
you get the hang of things.

Firstly, you need to understand how BranchCache hashes figure in all of this. 
Until a PC has the hash of the segment that it is downloading, it can’t share 
that segment with other peers, and the content won’t even be in the BranchCache 
Cache. So that first download that you see from PC1 will be a non-BranchCache 
enabled download as the hash won’t be available on the server yet. You can get 
the server to generate hashes in advance – on Server 2012 you can use PS but in 
your case you can download our HashiBashi tool which will do the same. - 
http://2pintsoftware.com/products/hashibashi/?portfolioID=10530

If the hash is not pre-created then it is the SECOND PC that does the download 
that will get the hash and therefore be able to share the files.
(All this works much better in SRV2012 where the server sends a 
‘MakeHashRequest’ back in the http header – although BITS is still too dumb to 
act on this even in Win8.1)

BITS event log – also check for Event 4 – which is the end of the Job and tells 
you the proportion of files that came from the server vs local peers.

Network latency – has nothing to do with HTTP downloads, which is what BITS is 
using here.

As far as clients getting content from the server instead of peers – this can 
happen  if all clients try to get the content at the same time.
IF your content has 10 files for instance – SCCM client gets the manifest, but 
then seems to randomize the order in which the files are added to the BITS job.
So this can mean that BITS on PC1 will be attempting to get FILE1 at the same 
time as PC2 is trying to grab FILE10

BITS + BranchCache behaves best (especially with SRV2008 and Win7) if the 
client start times are staggered so that certain clients can get a head start 
on the content. Id an ideal situation you might want to make a collection of 
‘Beachhead’ PC’s that will DL the content first – one at each site.

The Event 311 error is I think nothing to worry about but can’t remember off 
the top of my head – maybe my esteemed colleague Junior can?

Anyway – have a dig around on out site, here’s the FAQ which might help - 
http://2pintsoftware.com/2psfaqs/

Also our free BranchCache reporting is a good way of visualizing exactly which 
client is getting content from the server vs peers.

Good luck – and please feel free to ping me any questions offline if you wish.

Cheers

Phil


Phil Wilcock
2Pint Software
http://2pintsoftware.com





From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com 
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of George Salmaniw
Sent: 23 January 2015 21:05
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 2012R2 
CU3 clients

Am testing Branch Cache for possible use at remote sites and getting mixed 
results.  Client is Windows 7SP1 fully patched running the SCCM 2012R2 CU3 
client.  The server is 2008R2 running SCCM 2012R2 CU3.  I have four remote test 
sites consisting of anywhere from 2 to 5 test PCs per site.  Branch cache has 
been enable via GPO for test PCs as per MS BranchCache documentation.  Settings 
have been verified via

netsh branchcache show status all

On the server side, BranchCache has been checked under the Distribution Point 
properties: Enable and configure BranchCache for this distribution point



Using the Bits-Client Operational log the standard event order I am seeing is 
as follows:

Event ID 59 - BITS started the CCMDTS Job transfer job
Event ID 203 - The BITS service provided job credentials in response to the 
NEGOTIATE authentication challenge from … for the CCMDTS Job transfer job that 
is associated with the following URL … The credentials for the user were 
accepted.
Event ID 60 - BITS stopped transferring the CCMDTS Job transfer job that is 
associated with the [the file]. The status code is 0x0.

So all looks in order in terms of the file being downloaded.  Within the 
Details of Event ID 60 we can confirm whether peer caching was used by the 
following variables:

peerProtocolFlags – a value of 1 means that peer caching was used to download 
the file; a value of 0 means it was downloaded fr

RE: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 2012R2 CU3 clients

2015-01-24 Thread Phil Wilcock 
George,

Welcome to the confusing and crazy world of BranchCache and BITS. Here’s a 
couple of pointers. Rest assured that it can all work pretty effectively once 
you get the hang of things.

Firstly, you need to understand how BranchCache hashes figure in all of this. 
Until a PC has the hash of the segment that it is downloading, it can’t share 
that segment with other peers, and the content won’t even be in the BranchCache 
Cache. So that first download that you see from PC1 will be a non-BranchCache 
enabled download as the hash won’t be available on the server yet. You can get 
the server to generate hashes in advance – on Server 2012 you can use PS but in 
your case you can download our HashiBashi tool which will do the same. - 
http://2pintsoftware.com/products/hashibashi/?portfolioID=10530

If the hash is not pre-created then it is the SECOND PC that does the download 
that will get the hash and therefore be able to share the files.
(All this works much better in SRV2012 where the server sends a 
‘MakeHashRequest’ back in the http header – although BITS is still too dumb to 
act on this even in Win8.1)

BITS event log – also check for Event 4 – which is the end of the Job and tells 
you the proportion of files that came from the server vs local peers.

Network latency – has nothing to do with HTTP downloads, which is what BITS is 
using here.

As far as clients getting content from the server instead of peers – this can 
happen  if all clients try to get the content at the same time.
IF your content has 10 files for instance – SCCM client gets the manifest, but 
then seems to randomize the order in which the files are added to the BITS job.
So this can mean that BITS on PC1 will be attempting to get FILE1 at the same 
time as PC2 is trying to grab FILE10

BITS + BranchCache behaves best (especially with SRV2008 and Win7) if the 
client start times are staggered so that certain clients can get a head start 
on the content. Id an ideal situation you might want to make a collection of 
‘Beachhead’ PC’s that will DL the content first – one at each site.

The Event 311 error is I think nothing to worry about but can’t remember off 
the top of my head – maybe my esteemed colleague Junior can?

Anyway – have a dig around on out site, here’s the FAQ which might help - 
http://2pintsoftware.com/2psfaqs/

Also our free BranchCache reporting is a good way of visualizing exactly which 
client is getting content from the server vs peers.

Good luck – and please feel free to ping me any questions offline if you wish.

Cheers

Phil


Phil Wilcock
2Pint Software
http://2pintsoftware.com





From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of George Salmaniw
Sent: 23 January 2015 21:05
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [mssms] BranchCache not working as expected when serving SCCM 2012R2 
CU3 clients

Am testing Branch Cache for possible use at remote sites and getting mixed 
results.  Client is Windows 7SP1 fully patched running the SCCM 2012R2 CU3 
client.  The server is 2008R2 running SCCM 2012R2 CU3.  I have four remote test 
sites consisting of anywhere from 2 to 5 test PCs per site.  Branch cache has 
been enable via GPO for test PCs as per MS BranchCache documentation.  Settings 
have been verified via

netsh branchcache show status all

On the server side, BranchCache has been checked under the Distribution Point 
properties: Enable and configure BranchCache for this distribution point



Using the Bits-Client Operational log the standard event order I am seeing is 
as follows:

Event ID 59 - BITS started the CCMDTS Job transfer job
Event ID 203 - The BITS service provided job credentials in response to the 
NEGOTIATE authentication challenge from … for the CCMDTS Job transfer job that 
is associated with the following URL … The credentials for the user were 
accepted.
Event ID 60 - BITS stopped transferring the CCMDTS Job transfer job that is 
associated with the [the file]. The status code is 0x0.

So all looks in order in terms of the file being downloaded.  Within the 
Details of Event ID 60 we can confirm whether peer caching was used by the 
following variables:

peerProtocolFlags – a value of 1 means that peer caching was used to download 
the file; a value of 0 means it was downloaded from the server
bytesTransferredFromPeer – the actual bytes transferred from the peer cache


So here is what I am observing:

I install an application package on PC#1 for the first time at the remote site. 
 The event logs shows a value of 0 for peerProtocolFlags for all event ID 60 
entries
I install the same application package on PC#2.  Theoretically it should be 
pulling the files from peer cache.  What I am seeing are some files are pulled 
from the peer cache, while others are pulled from the server.  QUESTION:  is 
network latency [I have set it to 80msec] checked for each individual file?  If 
so, does that explain why some files are copied from the local cache whil