Re: new sms installation
- From: vijay_nightsafari@xxxxxxxxxxxx <vijaynightsafariyahoocomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:39:27 -0800
Also consider setting up and DP if you think about distributing something
from the secondary sites to its clients rather from the primary sites to all
other clients over WAN
-Vj
"Cathy Moya [MS]" wrote:
inline:.
"Darkz" <dash71@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138913595.052595.52090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,cathy: Welcome to the club! It can be frustrating at times, but never
I am brand new to SMS and still trying to grasp it .
boring. ;-)
We have a singlecathy: Not necessarily. It depends on how fast the WAN is and how big the 80
domain enviroment, about 80 locations on a WAN ... from what i
understand every site needs its own sms site database
locations are. SMS is always a balancing act between how responsive you need
SMS to be and how much bandwidth you can afford to let SMS suck down. If you
had T3s between every sites, you had only 10 clients in each site, and you
weren't using the WAN link for anything except SMS you might be fine using a
single site. Maybe. Also sort of depends what you're doing with those 10
clients. If all 800 clients all want to install Office at exactly the same
time, it could get tricky.
Now, you could also install one primary site and let the other 79 be
secondaries. Secondary sites do not require a database, they just use the
parent primary site database. Again, you have to think about how that
traffic will affect your WAN link. The benefit is, unlike 800 (+?) clients
all using the WAN link anytime they want (=unmanaged) but if you use a
secondary site, the traffic is mostly managed. Advanced Clients in that
location might still have some unmanaged traffic to get policy if you don't
configure a proxy management point. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Again, it all comes down to bandwidth. Other advantages to secondary sites:
they don't require you to buy additional SMS licenses (assuming you are
using SMS 2003) and they are totally managed from the parent site.
which could becathy: Well, yes, in theory you could put 80 site databases on the same
hosted on the same sql server..
computer running SQL Server. But at that point I start thinking "why aren't
you using secondary sites instead?" SMS talks to the database A Lot. If they
all have to hop the WAN just to talk to the database, you're racking up some
unmanaged traffic. Better to make it a secondary site so the database
traffic will be managed.
must the sms provider be on the samecathy: You can install only one SMS provider on the SQL Server. So the site
server as the database or can it stay or be moved back to the site
server
A provider could be installed on the SQL Server but B-n would have to be
installed on each site server. You would not be able to move the Site A
provider back to the site server after you install it on the SQL Server.
Thank you for your timecathy: You're welcome!
Ahmad
cathy: If you haven't seen our product documentation page yet, I invite you
to check it out:
http://www.microsoft.com/smserver/techinfo/productdoc/default.mspx
Good luck!
--
Cathy Moya, CISSP, MCSE: Security
Technical Writer, Windows Enterprise Management Division User Assistance
Check out the SMS Technical FAQ:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sms/sms2003/techfaq/default.mspx
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties and confers no rights.
- References:
- new sms installation
- From: Darkz
- Re: new sms installation
- From: Cathy Moya [MS]
- new sms installation
- Prev by Date: Re: AD System Group Discovery
- Next by Date: RE: Loosing SQL Connection
- Previous by thread: Re: new sms installation
- Next by thread: Re: Attach central site to new central site
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading