Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@CCWTech said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@scottalanmiller How about deployment?

What aspect?

The agent - approx 1,500 PC's.

You can silent install the agent via whatever means you want to push the exe out with.

MeshAgent.exe -fullinstall

CCWTech

@JaredBusch said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@CCWTech said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@CCWTech said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@scottalanmiller How about deployment?

What aspect?

The agent - approx 1,500 PC's.

You can silent install the agent via whatever means you want to push the exe out with.
MeshAgent.exe -fullinstall

What do you like to push it out with?

scottalanmiller

@CCWTech said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@CCWTech said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@scottalanmiller How about deployment?

What aspect?

The agent - approx 1,500 PC's.

Oh, I see.

scottalanmiller

And now 0.2.9-i

Doing the updates now.

black3dynamite

Has this happen to any of you ?
If this happens again, I'll be submitting a ticket.

-------- 2/27/2019, 8:57:46 AM ---- 0.2.9-h --------


/opt/meshcentral/node_modules/mongodb/lib/mongo_client.js:421
          throw err
          ^
MongoError: failed to connect to server [127.0.0.1:27017] on first connect [MongoError: connect ECONNREFUSED 127.0.0.1:27017]
    at Pool. (/opt/meshcentral/node_modules/mongodb-core/lib/topologies/server.js:336:35)
    at Pool.emit (events.js:182:13)
    at Connection. (/opt/meshcentral/node_modules/mongodb-core/lib/connection/pool.js:280:12)
    at Object.onceWrapper (events.js:273:13)
    at Connection.emit (events.js:182:13)
    at Socket. (/opt/meshcentral/node_modules/mongodb-core/lib/connection/connection.js:189:49)
    at Object.onceWrapper (events.js:273:13)
    at Socket.emit (events.js:182:13)
    at emitErrorNT (internal/streams/destroy.js:82:8)
    at emitErrorAndCloseNT (internal/streams/destroy.js:50:3)
Emitted 'error' event at:
    at /opt/meshcentral/node_modules/mongojs/lib/database.js:31:16
    at connectCallback (/opt/meshcentral/node_modules/mongodb/lib/mongo_client.js:527:5)
    at /opt/meshcentral/node_modules/mongodb/lib/mongo_client.js:418:11
    at process._tickCallback (internal/process/next_tick.js:61:11)

scottalanmiller

@black3dynamite No, have not seen that.

But the error appears to be from MongoDB not responding, not from MeshCentral.

scottalanmiller

I've seen the error with NodeBB when MongoDB's Atlas service went down.

scottalanmiller

Just went to 0.2.9-k

scottalanmiller

Running MC on 2019 end points now and it is noticeably way faster there than on 2012 R2, for example.

scottalanmiller

0.2.9-o

We couldn't update earlier today. Our MC install was getting quite a lot of use. Thanks to MC we were able to do a degree of work that we could never have done with SC due to its connection limits and performance overhead. MC worked like a champ.

Dashrender

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

0.2.9-o

We couldn't update earlier today. Our MC install was getting quite a lot of use. Thanks to MC we were able to do a degree of work that we could never have done with SC due to its connection limits and performance overhead. MC worked like a champ.

The licensing thing I could see - but really - MC is that much better on performance overhead?

scottalanmiller

@Dashrender said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

0.2.9-o

We couldn't update earlier today. Our MC install was getting quite a lot of use. Thanks to MC we were able to do a degree of work that we could never have done with SC due to its connection limits and performance overhead. MC worked like a champ.

The licensing thing I could see - but really - MC is that much better on performance overhead?

Yeah, needs a fraction of the resources and even with heavier use allows us to connect in under a quarter of the time. It makes us dramatically more responsive as the support team.

JaredBusch

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@Dashrender said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

0.2.9-o

We couldn't update earlier today. Our MC install was getting quite a lot of use. Thanks to MC we were able to do a degree of work that we could never have done with SC due to its connection limits and performance overhead. MC worked like a champ.

The licensing thing I could see - but really - MC is that much better on performance overhead?

Yeah, needs a fraction of the resources and even with heavier use allows us to connect in under a quarter of the time. It makes us dramatically more responsive as the support team.

It is working pretty good at this point for me, but it is missing a couple things I require for full use.

I have one client that requires consent before letting the connection run.

I have other clients that are only comfortable with the always on connection because they are alerted that we are connected by the task icon and or the notice banner at the top, and or the black background.

Ylian

Good input. Working on a few big ticket items right now (Agent update recovery and Intel AMT CCM activation), but user notification & consent is a frequently asked feature. Will try to give it a first go at it next week.