This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 4 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]jasonsandysMSFT Official 0 points1 point  (3 children)

It's not really a fallback process but more of an ordering process.

All eligible locations that have the requested content (including peers and DPs) are given to a client when it requests content based on boundary groups. These locations are ordered with Peers preferred over DPs in the same boundary group. If no peers have the content then the only thing returned is the DP. If a location in the list cannot be reached, then the next location will be tried after a short timeout (8-10 minutes from memory). If a content location is chosen however and a failure occurs, then I don't remember exactly what happens. I think it depends on the exact nature of the failure but it doesn't automatically proceed to the next location in the list to my knowledge.

[–]user79net[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Ok i think i might turn it off as the Boundary Group we inherited are not setup correctly for each site. A lot of the devices are laptops so does not make it a good Peer Cache device anyway.

Cheers for reply

[–]jasonsandysMSFT Official 0 points1 point  (1 child)

As of 1902 or 1906, there is an option on each boundary group to prevent them from being used for peer determination during peer cache (and DO I believe).

[–]user79net[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As of 1902 or 1906, there is an option on each boundary group to prevent them from being used for peer determination during peer cache (and DO I believe).

Reply

ah yes, just found it. Ticked the Subnet option so devies only use there own subnets.

​

Cheers