| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
kmm
Seasoned But Casual Onlooker
36 Posts
Status: offline |
 Posted - 06/12/2008 : 11:08:38 AM
|
I have a question I was hoping someone had some insight on.
We are looking for a better way to manage our server updates. I have some experience using WSUS but not with Configuartion Manager. Is there any benefit or added functionality in using SCCM w/WSUS over just using WSUS?
The situation is we have SCCM running but its being used by a department that only focuses on workstations. If we were to use it in this manner is there a way to setup security so that they would not be able to approve updates for our servers but still be able to use it for their workstations? Hope Im making sense
|
|
|
joe_elway
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Ireland
6673 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 1:45:28 PM
|
Yes, but it depends on who owns SCCM.
The admins can set permissions on the collections (think of them as groups that are built using queries from discovery and audit information). One collection for servers and one for desktops.
The problem here is, who owns SCCM and can you trust them? It should be architected kind of like AD: limited admins, delegated rights.
SCCM - for a larger environment it might make more sense to use SCCM depending on what you want. It still relies on WSUS being there. But it gives you better targeting, delegation and much more reporting. Also, by using packages/programs and advertisements, you can uninstall patches that don't work.
Other big perk ... you can deploy updates other than just MS ones. You can publish your own or even ones from other companies. Adobe and Citrix were meant to be getting involved. I think Dell were too. |
Aidan Finn
MCSE, MVP (Virtual Machine: Systems Administration)
IT Blog: http://www.aidanfinn.com
My Photography: http://www.aidanfinnphoto.com/
My Hyper-V Book: Mastering Hyper-V Deployment
Twitter: http://twitter.com/joe_elway |
Edited by - joe_elway on 06/12/2008 1:50:58 PM |
 |
|
|
kmm
Seasoned But Casual Onlooker
36 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 2:16:33 PM
|
Thanks again Joe....
I'll look more closely at the integration between SCCM and WSUS. From my understanding we are mainly concerned with just the MS updates and solid reporting on what is needed/installed/etc.
Am I correct in thinking that we could use WSUS as a standalone solution, then later bring it into SCCM if we see the need. I realize once its part of SCCM you no longer control it through the MMC snap-in.
Your input a month or so ago on SCOM was very useful. I getting more used to it each week and it really seems like a great product. I feel fortunate to have been tasked with this project as it seems like a nice thing to have in my bag of tricks. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
joe_elway
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Ireland
6673 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 2:36:23 PM
|
I love SCOM. Even if nothing is happening, it's actually reassuring ... and you can show the great uptime reports :)
Yes on both points:
- You can always move to SCCM.
- SCCM mainly uses WSUS as a communications mechanism with the AU client on the desktops/servers. You don't need to use the MMC. You do everything from the SCCM console and report site. |
Aidan Finn
MCSE, MVP (Virtual Machine: Systems Administration)
IT Blog: http://www.aidanfinn.com
My Photography: http://www.aidanfinnphoto.com/
My Hyper-V Book: Mastering Hyper-V Deployment
Twitter: http://twitter.com/joe_elway |
|
|
|
kmm
Seasoned But Casual Onlooker
36 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 3:16:40 PM
|
| in your opinion, is the reporting in a SCCM w/WSUS much more robust than just using WSUS by itself? |
|
|
|
joe_elway
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Ireland
6673 Posts
Status: offline |
|
| |
Topic |
|
WSUS -vs- SCCM w/WSUS
