lstrm Posted February 4, 2015 Report post Posted February 4, 2015 I have a UDI based task sequence for deploying Windows 7. This is deployed to a specific deployment collection. Since we do a lot of random redeployments on broken machines and recieve a few new machines every couple of days, it's a bit annoying having to either move a machine to the deployment collection, or to have to manually add the machine (entering the MAC and GUID). What I'm considering is simply deploying this task sequence as an available deployment to the All Systems Collection thorugh Media and PXE. Would this be a big mistake and am I taking any risks I'm not aware of? Since the deployment is available and the UDI sequence requires user intervention before it does anything, there should be no room for mistaken deployments, or am I missing something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spelaben Posted February 4, 2015 Report post Posted February 4, 2015 Don't do it. Here is a link to a German blog post which describes an issue we had in our company: http://www.mssccmfaq.de/2014/04/07/die-gefahr-lauert-in-der-task-sequence-supersedence/ Basically the problem is if you use supersedence to update applications, and the specific application is also used in a task sequence, the application deployment evaluation cycle will evaluate every single machine in your environment and the machines with the specific application will receive the update... That can cause a lot more pain than the described annoyances. We only deploy task sequences to unknown computers, and in case of a reinstall just search for the MAC adress / name (if it is known) and then delete the object. If anyone has a less time consuming way of initiating a reinstall I would be glad to hear suggestions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter van der Woude Posted February 4, 2015 Report post Posted February 4, 2015 Just a rule I always use and that's to never ever deploy something to the default All Systems collection. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter33 Posted February 5, 2015 Report post Posted February 5, 2015 Don't do it. Here is a link to a German blog post which describes an issue we had in our company: http://www.mssccmfaq.de/2014/04/07/die-gefahr-lauert-in-der-task-sequence-supersedence/ Welcome to the club. We only deploy task sequences to unknown computers, and in case of a reinstall just search for the MAC adress / name (if it is known) and then delete the object. If anyone has a less time consuming way of initiating a reinstall I would be glad to hear suggestions. Just add the client to the OSD collection intead of deleting it. This way it will not lose the collection memberships and assigned deployments. The client can be removed from the collection by a status filter rule. Jörgen Nielsson has written a script for that. http://ccmexec.com/2012/07/remove-from-collection-and-clear-pxe-flag-vbscript-using-status-filter-rule/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lstrm Posted February 5, 2015 Report post Posted February 5, 2015 Well, I'm aware that the general view on deploying to the All Systems collection is that it's a bad (really bad) idea. Though I still don't believe it could have any negative consequences on our system since the TS only is Available, and we don't do any superseedence updates (And we have no applications in the TS, the applications are deployed by throug the UDI script, I guess that dosent count as them being in the TS and thus being affected by any superseedence updates?). But I'm a newbie and wont risk anything by going against everyones advice so I'll leave the All Systems collection without any deployments. I'll leave it deployed to my Deployment collection, and also add it to the Unknown Systems collection. Are there any risks involved in using the default Unknown Systems collection? Or is that something you generally do? I've seen it recommended in multiple documentations and guides... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter van der Woude Posted February 5, 2015 Report post Posted February 5, 2015 There is no harm in using the default Unknown Computers collection, as the objects in the collection only represent unknown computers and that is only application during a PXE boot of an (as you might have guessed already) unknown computer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
