Secondary Site vs Distribution points

[vitycent]

Hey guys,

 

I'm just getting into SCCM and I have a lab setup with SCCM 2012 RC1. I've done a lot of reading, here and on technet about planning my hierarchy and I'm still not quite sure how I want it setup. I've gotten it down to either 1 primary site and lots of secondary sites for my remote offices or 1 primary site and just distribution points.

 

My company is about 300 employees and we have about 30 different sites throughout the United States. Each office is probably no more than 30 people except for the main office. Just about all of the offices has 1 server running as a DC. Can anyone make a recommendation on which one I should use? The remote sites are connected via slow links.

 

I don't really see a lot of information about advantages of one versus the other. Here is the technet verbiage.

 

Use the following details to help you plan for secondary sites:

• Secondary sites automatically install SQL Server Express during site installation if a local instance of SQL Server is not available.
  Does SQL server do a better job of managing bandwidth? Not entirely sure what is stored in the SQL DB.
  
• Secondary site installation is initiated from the Configuration Manager console when it is connected to the central administration site or a primary site.
  No problems here.
  
• When a secondary site installs, it automatically configures database replication with its parent primary site.
  no problems here.
  
• Secondary sites use database replication to communicate directly to their parent primary site and to obtain a subset of the shared Configuration Manager database.
  Does this optimize bandwidth usage then?
  
• Secondary sites support the routing of file-based content to other secondary sites.
  Not sure I'll be using this.
  
• Secondary site installations automatically deploy a management point and distribution point that are located on the secondary site server.
  
• No problems here.
  

Consider deploying a distribution point instead of installing another site if any of the following conditions apply:

• Your network bandwidth is sufficient for client computers at the remote location to communicate with a management point to download client policy, and send inventory, reporting status, and discovery information.
  Is there a lot of infomration being transferred back and forth? Doesn't BITS help with this? Can you make the distribution point a management point as well?
  
• Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) does not provide sufficient bandwidth control for your network requirements.
  Again, because most of our employees will be working at remote sites, will this cause bandwidth issues(We only have a 10Meg circuit going to the main office)?
  
• You want to use multicast to deploy operating systems to computers at the remote location.
  I would like to be able to deploy OS's at remote sites but can't you still do this with a secondary site?
  
• You want to stream virtual applications to computers at the remote location.
  
• Don't need to worry about this.
  

[jamest2305]

I am having exactly the same dilemma, at what point do you choose a DP over a secondary site and when would you choose to use branch cache instead of a DP? Can someone explain the best practice please.

[baschuel]

Unfortunately, not yet responded to this interesting question. I am also very interested in opinions on this.

 

Somewhere i read about that you only need a secondary site in sccm2012 if you have many clients and a slow bandwith.

 

In Kent Agerlunds new Book "SCCM 2012 - Mastering the fundamentals" he recommend installing a secondary site at remote locations if one of the following statements is true:

 

- The Remote locations have more than 500 and fewer than 5000 clients

- you need to compress traffic going to the site

- you need to control the upward flowing traffic

- you need a local management point

- you need a local SUP

 

 

We have locations with more than 500 and fewer than 5000 clients but with a good connection and good bandwith. Should i install a Secondary Site oder just a distribution Point? hmpf..

[Bram]

I need to make this choice as well this week.

Though we only have about 20 users in our branch offices, I think we'll be using Secondary Sites instead of DP's because you have more features available. (Thinking of using SUP in the future)

The downside is maybe the bit more complex environment and heavier load on your remote server compared to DP.

[Tay]

I have setup 10 DP's at our branches on win 7 and it works great! All the content is stored on the local network and the DP's are updated after hours. If that's all you need is the content like endpoint, windows updates, and app catalog a DP is the way to go.

[Rocket Man]

"300 users and 30 locations"

 

personally.......Distribution points for sure....less taxing on your already existing servers at remote sites...one thing to keep in mind if using a windows7 box acting as a DP it does not support PXE.

 

As for a centralised SUP...why not?

 

Just package your updates once a month and distribute and deploy to your 30 sites!!

You can tweak the bandwidth that ConfigMgr uses on the DP now with SCCM 2012.

 

Rocket Man