SCCM Application Deployment 0% Waiting for content

[Theldron]

Hi all,

 

Having issues with SCCM being stuck installing applications at downloading 0%. When I check the deployment status it says waiting for content.

 

I know this can have something to do with boundaries so checked and the client I am trying to get working is in a IP address of *.*.34.*. On the SCCM server there is only one IP subnet of *.*.32.* and Default-first-site-name.

 

SCCM has been working so not sure why this has just cropped up except that it updated to SCCM 1902 yesterday.

 

Could this be the issue?

 

Cheers

[Arthur]

I had this issue recently. In my case it was caused by me limiting the BITS bandwidth in Group Policy after following @crc-ict's post here. After changing the settings back to 'Not Configured' the SCCM client is now a lot faster at deploying applications.

 

Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > Network > Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS)

 

Do you have any of these GPOs configured?

[free780]

You can also throttle Bits via Configmgr client settings. You don't really need to throttle Bits. In terms of Boundsries you should just be able to add your AD Sites. I've noticed the odd apllication get stuck downloading since I went to 1902. Reseting Bits didn't help and clearing the cache. Removing (reseting WMI) and reinstalling the client seem to fix it. 1902 could do with a Rollup update. Though it sounds like 1906 isn't far away from release.

[crc-ict]

I had this issue recently. In my case it was caused by me limiting the BITS bandwidth in Group Policy after following @crc-ict's post here. After changing the settings back to 'Not Configured' the SCCM client is now a lot faster at deploying applications.

 

Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > Network > Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS)

 

Do you have any of these GPOs configured?

 

Sorry about that @Arthur

 

In my defence, we don't use SCCM here, so I didn't know of the adverse effect!

[Arthur]

Sorry about that @Arthur

No worries. It was a good learning exercise.