Symantec Management Platform (Notification Server)

 View Only

  • 1.  UNC versus HTTP/HTTPS downloads

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 07:32 AM
    Hello,

    Can anybody summarize for me the benefits of having HTTP(S) downloads versus UNC downloads?
    In addition, what are the benefits of installing IIS on the package server?

    In my scenario, I have one single Windows 2000/2003 AD domain and UNC downloads work seemlessly on Windows 2000/XP/Vista computers.

    Should I turn on the IIS on my package servers? Why?

    Thank you so much,
    Peter


  • 2.  RE: UNC versus HTTP/HTTPS downloads

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 07:49 AM
    The only real difference is overhead and security. SMB (UNC based) downloads have more overhead, or so I was told, along time ago. I've never really tested the overall difference. Security wise, for UNC you are going to need to set share level permissions of some type, while IIS, at least in theory, can control those permissions for you (anonymous access, etc).

    If what you have is working, I see little reason to change. As the use of Task Server becomes more widespread, it does add the AltirisHttp service (protocol?) in instances where the local task\package server doesn't have IIS installed.


  • 3.  RE: UNC versus HTTP/HTTPS downloads

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 08:23 AM
    Thank you jharings!


  • 4.  RE: UNC versus HTTP/HTTPS downloads

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 08:43 AM
    UNC path downloads can not be resumed if I recall.


  • 5.  RE: UNC versus HTTP/HTTPS downloads

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 09:37 AM
    That is kind of hard to determine. It seems like we had this discussion a few months back. The kb says otherwise, but I believe the recovery is 'situational'. https://kb.altiris.com/article.asp?article=1811&p=1


  • 6.  RE: UNC versus HTTP/HTTPS downloads

    Posted Nov 28, 2008 10:13 AM
    Just for clarification, here is what I was referring to https://kb.altiris.com/article.asp?article=38607&p=1


  • 7.  RE: UNC versus HTTP/HTTPS downloads

    Posted Nov 28, 2008 11:25 AM
    Good find Brandon. The question I will have to pose to Symantec is whether or not those two articles are the exact opposite of each other.


  • 8.  RE: UNC versus HTTP/HTTPS downloads

    Posted Dec 02, 2008 12:42 AM
    Hey Jim,

    I'm interested in their response. We've experienced what is described in AKB 38607: UNC Package delivery and Checksums; But we haven't watched every package download.


  • 9.  RE: UNC versus HTTP/HTTPS downloads

    Posted Dec 02, 2008 03:44 AM
    Yeah, the info in 38607 doesn't sound right at all. You can't resume mid-file via UNC (well, RoboCopy can do it with the /Z or /ZB switches, so why not the Altiris Agent?), but you can via HTTP since there is a built-in "continue" mechanism (IIS status code 206 I think gets logged in that case). This bit in particular:
    quote:
    Packages that contain multiple files can resume at the end of the last file successfully delivered, but only via HTTP. This is not supported on UNC deliveries.
    I think it should say "...multiple files can be resumed can be resumed via either mechanism (with all successfully downloaded files remaining intact), but individual files can only be resumed via HTTP".