WSUS SCCM Question

myITforum.com Community Forum

Home Forums Blogs Live Support chat Search Articles Wiki FAQ Email Lists Register Login My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums

Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ Ticket List Log Out

All Forums RSS Feed Subscription:

WSUS SCCM Question

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Management Products] >> System Center Products >> System Center Configuration Manager >> WSUS SCCM Question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

WSUS SCCM Question - 6/25/2008 4:30:26 PM

MhermanNBME

Posts: 74
Score: 3
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

We have wsus all up and are testing, but I have a question about the clients. Now that it's integrated, does that mean that every computer we want to push updates to requires the sccm client? From what I understand they must be in a collection to push updates to, if we set it up so a certian OU is discovered but clients are not pushed to, will those systems be able to get updates? I'm assuming if so, we would push the settings out through GP.

Post #: 1

RE: WSUS SCCM Question - 6/25/2008 5:03:08 PM

wbracken

Posts: 1036
Score: 22
Joined: 4/12/2002
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

This is a good question. Seems to me (untested) that you could leave the GPO's in place to have your workstations point to WSUS outside of SCCM, then as the client gets installed SCCM takes over. Now the bigger question is wether the approvals you make in SCCM get translated to WSUS for no SCCM Clients??

_____________________________

William Bracken

Visit my new Blog
http://wbracken.wordpress.com/

(in reply to MhermanNBME)

Post #: 2

RE: WSUS SCCM Question - 6/25/2008 7:23:39 PM

csummers311

Posts: 103
Score: 5
Joined: 2/20/2004
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline

If you are going to use your current WSUS server then you should unapprove all updates before making it a Software Update Point (SUP). ConfigMgr will take over WSUS on that server and it is not supported to use it like a normal WSUS server.

If the computer has the Configuration Manager client installed and you have a SUP then the client will need to (automatically) configure the WSUS settings in the registry. You will need to disable any GPOs that are pointing your computers to WSUS, the GPO will override the ConfigMgr client and you won't get the results you would expect. If you are using the SUP point to do the initial deployment of the ConfigMgr client then you would use a GPO to set the SUP as the WSUS server and then remove the GPO once the clients get installed.

If you want to patch computers that do not have the ConfigMgr client then you would need a seperate WSUS server from the SUP and a GPO that points those specified computers to that WSUS server.

In my environment I created a new WSUS server, made it a SUP, and left the old WSUS intact in case I need it for some reason. Also, if you install WSUS on the ConfigMgr server, make sure you change the port from the default of 80, I think the Wiki on MyITForum has information on that.

(in reply to wbracken)

Post #: 3

RE: WSUS SCCM Question - 6/25/2008 8:05:43 PM

wbracken

Posts: 1036
Score: 22
Joined: 4/12/2002
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Thanks for the clarification. That does kind of suck that basically any machine that may be having issues with the SCCM Client will now also not be able to get patches. Just this fact alone makes me wonder if I should roll my WSUS over to Config Manager.

_____________________________

William Bracken

Visit my new Blog
http://wbracken.wordpress.com/

(in reply to csummers311)

Post #: 4

RE: WSUS SCCM Question - 6/25/2008 10:48:49 PM

jsandys

Posts: 531
Score: 17
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

One comment to add to this is that if you have a machine that has issues with the ConfigMgr client, then you have a machine with other issues anyway.

_____________________________

Jason
________________________________________
http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys/default.aspx

(in reply to wbracken)

Post #: 5