Microsoft

System Center Configuration Manager Feedback

How can we improve Configuration Manager?

Site Server High Availability or Clustering

Configuration Manager is becoming more mission critical every day. The ability to Cluster the Site Server role (Inboxes & SMS Provider) is more and more important as that is the single point of failure for a Primary Site.

If the Site Server role goes down the Primary Site is down no matter how many Management Points or SMS Provider etc. exist.

If we could Cluster the Site Server or at least have 2 systems share that role for High Availability then this would no longer be an issue.

Even though we can designate multiple SMS Providers, if the site system itself goes down, consoles will not connect to ANY of these other providers. That’s because the console ALWAYS collects to the Site Server for a list of the SMS Providers every time a console is opened, so it’s not true SMS Provider redundancy if the Site Server goes down, no new consoles can connect.

434 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Lenny Caputo shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    12 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Fred commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Has anyone actually tried this in a lab? I've just installed 1710 TP in my lab (FileServer, SQL Cluster, Active PS, Passive PS), but HA does not act as described in the docs.

        There is no way to customize the passive server's Installation, everything is copied to and installed on the c:\ drive. The active server does not keep the passive server synced and the manual failover takes ages to complete - it would be faster performing a recovery of the botched site via site recovery. What sense does high availability have in this case then? The current implementation leaves much to be desired.

      • Philip Webb commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Is there any suggestion as to when this might hit production, since it didn't make the 1706 production release? On course for 1710?

      • Lenny Caputo commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This is great news and a big win for us. We can now present an acceptable solution to servers in our Hosted environment.

        Finally Primary Sites will now have an acceptable HA solution. I'm assuming we will see the CAS included in later releases of SCCM 17xx.

      • Richard van Nuland commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        In the 1706 tech preview only the primary site server is available as high available. But when the CAS goes down we still have a major issue. When will that be supported as HA as well?

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This idea is still planned ? Yes give us three new windows 10 popup balloons options and leave high availability for server and whole sccm for year 2147,

      • Ivan commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        That would be super cool. In our company, patching a primary site server means getting an approval from all the teams that rely on SCCM functionality. Sometimes it's quite a challenge to find the perfect window for an outage.

      • Lenny Caputo commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I'm glad to see that this is now a Planned addition to SCCM. This will be a big WIN in the datacenter!

      • James Mymryk commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Key business case for this is with Business Continuity return to service times for environments. If you are using Configuration Manager as your server build infrastructure component and it doesn't have redundancy to a different datacenter, you cannot start your recovery of other systems until it has been recovered thereby extending recovery times.

      • Nash Pherson (MVP) commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I'd tweak this one to say "Support Hyper-V Replicas for Site Server High Availability" as hyperv and vmware high availability should be a tested scenario

      Feedback and Knowledge Base