4/30/2023 0 Comments Sccm 2012 filelib cleanup![]() This makes it really easy to use as a trigger for automation, which I’ll show in a bit. The best part of Content Validation is that it kicks back status messages for everything (validation cycle started, package validation success/failure, validation cycle completed, validation cycle failed, etc.). If there is content you’ve sent to the distribution point, but it never arrived or maybe was removed for whatever reason, the content validation process is oblivious to that content. Pretty simple, right? But be very aware of step 1: the package list that smsdpmon is checking is what is currently on the distribution point, not necessarily what should be there. If anything fails the validation, a status message is kicked back to the site, which will flip the package into a “Failed” distribution state.For every package in the list, content item hashes are validated against what’s in the content library on the site server.The package list is loaded from the distribution point.The basic workflow for this process looks something like this: Peter van der Woude has a good quick start overview of using smsdpmon: You can also run it manually by just running smsdpmon.exe (in the SMS_DP$\sms\bin folder on every DP), or you can validate a single package either from the Content tab of a DP in the console, or via command line. You can set it to run on a schedule in the Properties pane of the DP. ![]() Content ValidationĬontent Validation is incredibly useful. It not only saves disk space in general, but also preps you for BranchCache by ensuring all the content hashes BranchCache needs are already calculated up front (rather than needing to calculate them on the fly), saving more disk space and processing overhead. Bryan Dam has a good summary of the benefits of enabling dedupe in that same post linked above. This one is a bit more important, as it does directly affect content on the DP. But both standard and pull DPs present the same challenges when it comes to content management. It’s more down to processing overhead and transfer rates. For a good write up on this, see Bryan Dam’s blog:įor our purposes here, the difference doesn’t matter much. Suffice it to say that there are significant benefits to considering pull DPs, particularly if you’re working in a larger environment. I’m not going to reinvent the wheel on going over the differences between standard DPs and pull DPs. I’m really only going to go into detail on the Content Library Reconciliation bit, as that’s the one which has caused me a lot of headache in the past, but I’ll drop some links and some high level detail for other things to consider. Luckily, there’s some simple things we can do to take this burden away. It’s easy to feel like you’re constantly drowning in a sea of DP warnings and errors. ![]() Getting content distributed is one thing, but then making sure it STAYS distributed, and old things are getting cleaned up, and making sure all the content hashes are correct, etc. Distribution Points are great, but they can often be a huge annoyance. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |