Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect
-
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
That'd be cool. I did watch a couple of videos and during the session, he pointed MeshCentral2 to the MeshCommander install.
Oh, maybe one just leverages the other.
-
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Since we have so many sites with so little at some of them, it would benefit us to be able to move more to single devices that do more than one thing.
How does that play in to these tools?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Since we have so many sites with so little at some of them, it would benefit us to be able to move more to single devices that do more than one thing.
How does that play in to these tools?
If we get the onboard management, ie. VPro or whatever flavor, we then have the ability to power cycle equipment at isolated sites since we are, by law forbidden to have all of the equipment on UPS's (designated explosive environment). If we can get eyes on site, even without access to the control room at the site, we can get the go ahead to power cycle, in this case, via onboard management if needed. The interface makes it really convenient -- single pane of glass and all that.
-
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Since we have so many sites with so little at some of them, it would benefit us to be able to move more to single devices that do more than one thing.
How does that play in to these tools?
If we get the onboard management, ie. VPro or whatever flavor, we then have the ability to power cycle equipment at isolated sites since we are, by law forbidden to have all of the equipment on UPS's (designated explosive environment). If we can get eyes on site, even without access to the control room at the site, we can get the go ahead to power cycle, in this case, via onboard management if needed. The interface makes it really convenient -- single pane of glass and all that.
That's why you want remote access. But why extra equipment per site?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Since we have so many sites with so little at some of them, it would benefit us to be able to move more to single devices that do more than one thing.
How does that play in to these tools?
If we get the onboard management, ie. VPro or whatever flavor, we then have the ability to power cycle equipment at isolated sites since we are, by law forbidden to have all of the equipment on UPS's (designated explosive environment). If we can get eyes on site, even without access to the control room at the site, we can get the go ahead to power cycle, in this case, via onboard management if needed. The interface makes it really convenient -- single pane of glass and all that.
That's why you want remote access. But why extra equipment per site?
Not extra. These sites have a site controller PC for the POS with a management port and a camera PC also with a management port. I expect that we'll be adding more remote sites in the coming years and if it's available to move to MeshCentral/MeshCommander, then why not. Even the larger sites only have 5 or 6 cameras.
Btw, we have and have always had remote access to all of our sites. -
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Not extra. These sites have a site controller PC for the POS with a management port and a camera PC also with a management port. I expect that we'll be adding more remote sites in the coming years and if it's available to move to MeshCentral/MeshCommander, then why not. Even the larger sites only have 5 or 6 cameras
You had mentioned moving to single devices, but if you can access remotely, why not "no" devices?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Not extra. These sites have a site controller PC for the POS with a management port and a camera PC also with a management port. I expect that we'll be adding more remote sites in the coming years and if it's available to move to MeshCentral/MeshCommander, then why not. Even the larger sites only have 5 or 6 cameras
You had mentioned moving to single devices, but if you can access remotely, why not "no" devices?
Vended POS, camera PC to reduce data across the VPN, UPS for local, non-fuel delivery equipment electrically isolated from the remainder of the site.
-
@scotth Note that MeshCommander is built into MeshCentral. Once you get MeshCentral running, click on a device and if it has Intel AMT, you will see a "Intel AMT" tab. The content of that tab is MeshCommander.
If you just want a Intel AMT console and connect to AMT devices on the local network or using a VPN, use MeshCommander. If you want a more completely management solution with AMT support included use MeshCentral.
Hope it helps.
-
@Ylian said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scotth Note that MeshCommander is built into MeshCentral. Once you get MeshCentral running, click on a device and if it has Intel AMT, you will see a "Intel AMT" tab. The content of that tab is MeshCommander.
If you just want a Intel AMT console and connect to AMT devices on the local network or using a VPN, use MeshCommander. If you want a more completely management solution with AMT support included use MeshCentral.
Hope it helps.
That's clear. We have over 20 sites on VPN and will follow your advise.
Thanks -
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@Ylian said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scotth Note that MeshCommander is built into MeshCentral. Once you get MeshCentral running, click on a device and if it has Intel AMT, you will see a "Intel AMT" tab. The content of that tab is MeshCommander.
If you just want a Intel AMT console and connect to AMT devices on the local network or using a VPN, use MeshCommander. If you want a more completely management solution with AMT support included use MeshCentral.
Hope it helps.
That's clear. We have over 20 sites on VPN and will follow your advise.
ThanksThat's what I was thinking, just one central machine.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scotth said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@Ylian said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scotth Note that MeshCommander is built into MeshCentral. Once you get MeshCentral running, click on a device and if it has Intel AMT, you will see a "Intel AMT" tab. The content of that tab is MeshCommander.
If you just want a Intel AMT console and connect to AMT devices on the local network or using a VPN, use MeshCommander. If you want a more completely management solution with AMT support included use MeshCentral.
Hope it helps.
That's clear. We have over 20 sites on VPN and will follow your advise.
ThanksThat's what I was thinking, just one central machine.
It keeps getting sweeter. Unfortunately, I had to power down and backup my installation from March. I added drives to our hosts and will be able to spin it back up.
And as luck would have it, ..... Windshield Time.
-
Why are you guys running this on Ubuntu now?
-
@bnrstnr said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Why are you guys running this on Ubuntu now?
For me, because its what I have the most history with.
-
@bnrstnr said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Why are you guys running this on Ubuntu now?
Iām not.
-
@bnrstnr said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Why are you guys running this on Ubuntu now?
Because it was what was the choice when we started and just keep updating. Why would we change?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@bnrstnr said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Why are you guys running this on Ubuntu now?
Because it was what was the choice when we started and just keep updating. Why would we change?
For some reason I thought you were using Fedora
-
@bnrstnr said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@bnrstnr said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Why are you guys running this on Ubuntu now?
Because it was what was the choice when we started and just keep updating. Why would we change?
For some reason I thought you were using Fedora
For MeshCentral? No, always was on Ubuntu.
-
@bnrstnr said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
@bnrstnr said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:
Why are you guys running this on Ubuntu now?
Because it was what was the choice when we started and just keep updating. Why would we change?
For some reason I thought you were using Fedora
Looks like I need to update
-
hahahahahha
As test system on Vultr, I had not done anything about ssh security yet...
-
That was fast
