MS Updates caching for ISP

removed82807c · 02-03-2007, 10:39 AM

Hi,

I've been reading a bit through the forums about the WSUS servers that cache the bandwidth killing MS Updates. It seems a good product, but I don't think this would be very suitable for an ISP as there is too much hassle with the clients. Same thing if you start talking about SMS...

I'm actually looking for a product that can cache these updates so that our customers only have to download them from a local network. It just doesn't make sense that you download the same files a couple thousand times, over and over again.

Does anybody know of any products that can "cache" the updates? Whether this can be done with a proxy server, a WSUS server, ... I don't care, i just need something that can do this without having to interfere with any of our clients' configuration.

Thanks in advance

newhouse1390 · 02-03-2007, 10:10 PM

Thats exactly why we deployed a WSUS server at our office. We needed to cut down on bandwidth usage so we implemented a WSUS server to download the updates and distrubte the updates from there.

Basically the way WSUS works is the updates are downloaded to the local server and then the clients check in with the server and the updates go from the local server to the local client.

This saved us from having to download all the 8 updates on all 800 machines. I would use WSUS. SMS provides a lot more flexibility to deployment, if you have a complex enviorment I would use it.

levi.rogers · 02-04-2007, 12:27 AM

I agree with newhouse if you are on a prive LAN. However, I believe that you are talking from the stand point of an ISP if this is so. Talk to your head IT guy and he can explain why it won't work. Unless you have under 500 or so customer's. Before long you would be building lines just to handle MS updates..that is Microsoft's job not the ISP.

removed82807c · 02-04-2007, 10:06 AM

Indeed I am talking about deploying it from the perspective of an ISP.
Whether you're looking at it from the perspective of a business or a ISP, Windows Updates take a high load on the overall bandwidth and we, as an ISP, are looking into an option to limit this bandwidth "abuse" from Microsoft.

Why is it necessary to download the same DirectX update a couple thousand times over the same link?

Our "internal" network is obviously having a greater bandwidth than our link(s) to the internet so that is why we are looking into some options.

Of course we cannot expect our customers to do a lot of tweaks with their system like is the case for WSUS or SMS. First of all, people usually have a problem doing these things and secondly, a lot of people won't even know what to do, even with clear instructions.

We kinda want to implement something like transparent proxying, but in this case especially for the Windows Updates.

And honestly, we don't give a f*** what Microsoft wants or dictates us. They are causing us to use a lot of bandwidth that, in our opinion, is abuse of our bandwidth, taking away bandwidth that could be used for other things.

It's easy to say "just get a bigger link", but why? Isn't Microsoft already a big enough cost for industries? If we could find a way to cache these things, wouldn't that just be bliss?

crazijoe · 02-05-2007, 06:40 AM

Easy solution. Don't use MS products.

levi.rogers · 02-05-2007, 07:08 AM

That is not a solution. He is speaking from the stand point of a provider. He cannot choose for his customer's what OS they will or will not use.

Furthermore, I guess I misspoke myself before. I am not talking about putting in a "bigger" pipe(tubes if you found that hilarious). I am saying that whatever you host the MS updates on will have to be fairly hefty. You can't just through in one machine and say that you can house the updates for download there it is going to require a good bit more than that. I am sure if you do some down and dirty research you will see that this will not save you time or money.

Of course, I could be wrong. I think the real question is how many customer's you are going to be attempting to house msupdates for.

removed82807c · 02-05-2007, 10:56 AM

we're currently a small provider, having about 1500 customers, goal for the end of the year is about 10000.

most of the clients have a 256kbps link to the internet, 1mpbs to 3 mbps internal network.

I just wanted to find out if there is a software or maybe network option to cache ms updates, what needs to be done to achieve this option. I know for a fact that MS doesn't really like it, unless you're using their products.

software licenses are no problem, hardware is no problem, internal bandwidth is no problem.

02-03-2007, 10:39 AM	#1 (permalink)
removed82807c Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 42 OS: ******* WINCRAP	MS Updates caching for ISP Hi, I've been reading a bit through the forums about the WSUS servers that cache the bandwidth killing MS Updates. It seems a good product, but I don't think this would be very suitable for an ISP as there is too much hassle with the clients. Same thing if you start talking about SMS... I'm actually looking for a product that can cache these updates so that our customers only have to download them from a local network. It just doesn't make sense that you download the same files a couple thousand times, over and over again. Does anybody know of any products that can "cache" the updates? Whether this can be done with a proxy server, a WSUS server, ... I don't care, i just need something that can do this without having to interfere with any of our clients' configuration. Thanks in advance

02-03-2007, 10:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	Thats exactly why we deployed a WSUS server at our office. We needed to cut down on bandwidth usage so we implemented a WSUS server to download the updates and distrubte the updates from there. Basically the way WSUS works is the updates are downloaded to the local server and then the clients check in with the server and the updates go from the local server to the local client. This saved us from having to download all the 8 updates on all 800 machines. I would use WSUS. SMS provides a lot more flexibility to deployment, if you have a complex enviorment I would use it. __________________ Because you can read this thank a teacher, because it's English thank a soldier.

02-04-2007, 12:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
levi.rogers Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mid-West Posts: 111 OS: WinXP Pro	agreed I agree with newhouse if you are on a prive LAN. However, I believe that you are talking from the stand point of an ISP if this is so. Talk to your head IT guy and he can explain why it won't work. Unless you have under 500 or so customer's. Before long you would be building lines just to handle MS updates..that is Microsoft's job not the ISP.

02-05-2007, 06:40 AM	#5 (permalink)
crazijoe Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Omaha, The Center of the Universe Posts: 7,632 OS: WinXP, Win2K3 My System	Easy solution. Don't use MS products. __________________ Microsoft MCSA + Messaging, MVP, A+, Network+ http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b3...other/Help.jpg Do you want a real Republican? HDD diagnostic tools / HDD data recovery software

02-05-2007, 07:08 AM	#6 (permalink)
levi.rogers Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mid-West Posts: 111 OS: WinXP Pro	Not a solution. That is not a solution. He is speaking from the stand point of a provider. He cannot choose for his customer's what OS they will or will not use. Furthermore, I guess I misspoke myself before. I am not talking about putting in a "bigger" pipe(tubes if you found that hilarious). I am saying that whatever you host the MS updates on will have to be fairly hefty. You can't just through in one machine and say that you can house the updates for download there it is going to require a good bit more than that. I am sure if you do some down and dirty research you will see that this will not save you time or money. Of course, I could be wrong. I think the real question is how many customer's you are going to be attempting to house msupdates for.

02-04-2007, 10:06 AM	#4 (permalink)
removed82807c Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 42 OS: ******* WINCRAP	Indeed I am talking about deploying it from the perspective of an ISP. Whether you're looking at it from the perspective of a business or a ISP, Windows Updates take a high load on the overall bandwidth and we, as an ISP, are looking into an option to limit this bandwidth "abuse" from Microsoft. Why is it necessary to download the same DirectX update a couple thousand times over the same link? Our "internal" network is obviously having a greater bandwidth than our link(s) to the internet so that is why we are looking into some options. Of course we cannot expect our customers to do a lot of tweaks with their system like is the case for WSUS or SMS. First of all, people usually have a problem doing these things and secondly, a lot of people won't even know what to do, even with clear instructions. We kinda want to implement something like transparent proxying, but in this case especially for the Windows Updates. And honestly, we don't give a f*** what Microsoft wants or dictates us. They are causing us to use a lot of bandwidth that, in our opinion, is abuse of our bandwidth, taking away bandwidth that could be used for other things. It's easy to say "just get a bigger link", but why? Isn't Microsoft already a big enough cost for industries? If we could find a way to cache these things, wouldn't that just be bliss?

02-05-2007, 10:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
removed82807c Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 42 OS: ******* WINCRAP	we're currently a small provider, having about 1500 customers, goal for the end of the year is about 10000. most of the clients have a 256kbps link to the internet, 1mpbs to 3 mbps internal network. I just wanted to find out if there is a software or maybe network option to cache ms updates, what needs to be done to achieve this option. I know for a fact that MS doesn't really like it, unless you're using their products. software licenses are no problem, hardware is no problem, internal bandwidth is no problem.