Preferred Software Update Points
Now that we have the option to define both Distribution Points and Management Points as preferred, it'd be terrific if we could have the same option for Software Update Points. It would make a strong case when designing a flat hierarchy.
Nickolaj Andersen
shared this idea
Admindjam
(Product Director, or Executive, System Center Configuration Manager)
responded
With 1706, there is no much more control over SUPs and mapping to Boundary Groups. There is one more item left, which will allow control to failover (timeout) faster than 2 hours:
https://configurationmanager.uservoice.com/forums/300492-ideas/suggestions/20353357-give-more-granular-control-over-the-2-hour-sup-fai
Everything else for this item is completed in 1706.
27 comments
-
bdam
commented
Bob, can you explain what you mean by the client piece?
-
Steven
commented
1702 lets you add SUPs to boundary groups. This likely can be marked as completed.
-
Chad Simmons
commented
Wasn't this implemented in v1610 / 1702? https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sccm/core/servers/deploy/configure/boundary-groups#software-update-points
-
Fabio Ferraro
commented
I have problem (and SR open) regarding SUP selection and SUP switch in different domais. If I will be able to set SUP by Boundaries Gruup could be great!
-
Arthur Benedetti White
commented
Yes, we need this also we keep getting systems pointing to a SUP in another domain so if the SUP could be enforced by boundary group that would really help.
-
Alex H.
commented
A major component of WAN traffic in our global enterprise is WSUS catalog downloads. Being able to restrict clients a a foreign site to use the SUP local to them would be a huge win for us. We had to hack the CM database to create this functionality in the current version, which is never a good option.
-
mike d
commented
the option force the client to (randomly?) select a new software update point still has some unexpected results in 1606.
-
Donald Maslanka
commented
This would resolve a major problem for very large CM infrastructure(450k clients)
-
Nathan Nitzel
commented
This is a huge problem for enterprise environments with high levels of security/firewall that divide their segregated forests even though they have trust. RNGing your SUPs when you can define boundaries to your DPs and MPs is just crazy talk at this point. Can't wait for this to be added!!!
-
tsc
commented
should be done long time ago
-
lthomas
commented
+1 up again! This would be great.
-
Anonymous
commented
It would make more sense if we could specify the SUP. Switching to a different random Sup isn't very useful. A better idea would be the ability to specify MP and SUP as part of the client policy or as a collection variable or boundary even.
It would also be nice if we could specify MP's and DP's separately in boundaries.
-
Thomas Forsmark Soerensen
commented
I have a scenario where I have one primary ConfigMgr server and two servers with MP, DP and SUP placed in two untrusted AD forests.
The clients should really be able to select SUP based on its boundary address or else it might select a SUP in another forest that is no accessible for by client. -
Terry
commented
This would be a VERY nice feature addtion
-
bryan
commented
Our PCI environment cannot talk to servers that are internet connected. There is no official supported way that I'm aware of to guarantee that the SUP a sever connects to is not the active SUP downloading from MS. If we could tie collection/devices to specific SUPs this problem could be solved. As it is, we have to set up a separate and standalone WSUS environment for this.
-
Anonymous
commented
VERY needed for multiple SUPS in a site that spans multiple domains. Applying the SUP via GPO is unnecessary overhead.
-
Alex
commented
Please add SUP to function like Management Point!! This is very needed!!
-
Phil
commented
This is needed. Also the ability to Control witch clients can go to Microsoft to download the updates is needed.
-
Michael Schultz
commented
We are currently going through an issue with our SUPs and machines failing during deployment scans with error 0x80072ee2 which is one error that doesn't cause clients to try a different SUP. We have also found that the vast majority of our clients are connecting to on SUP which exceeds the client limit of WSUS. Being able to divide up clients to use specific SUPs like with preferred MPs would be great.
-
Fintan So
commented
Adding preferred SUP as a boundary group capability would be very useful since current SCCM 2012 clients do not seem to obey by the boundary groups to look up and communicate with local SUP to get software update policies.