This content has been marked as final. Show 7 replies
Sounds like you should be looking at Agent Handlers, essentially ePO servers but without their own database.
What's the issue you are trying to solve?
thanks for the reply.
i'm looking at rolling ePO out into a widely distributed infrastructure across multiple countries, and was looking to set it up like WSUS so everything can be controlled from one box, however there may be a request to have a seperate ePO box on every site so the local site guys can still do reporting etc if any of the links are down.
original plan before ePO 4.5 was with 4.0 and was going to use one central ePO box with a superagent at each site.
I'm new to epo so this may may be a stupid question but what is the difference between an agent handler and a superagent?
If you need access to manage the local systems when the network to the central system is down then you have no choice but to deploy local ePO servers. Note that there is no active top-down management of child ePO servers from the parent, it just allows you to share policies etc between the ePO servers and aggregate reporting.
Agent Handlers are ePO servers without a database. They connect to the central ePO SQL DB and provides a connection point for systems in remote sites, limited connectivity networks etc.
thanks again for the reply matt.
i'm thinking the most suitable and efficiently managable solution would be to have one central ePO box at a central site, with an agent handler at each of the other sites.
Sounds good, as long as you have decent connectivity between the Agent Handler and the SQL DB that should be fine.
ahhhh... sites with lower bandwidth links better with their own epo box?
Not sure that there is an exact rule to follow here but generally speaking the normal McAfee Agent is designed to work offline for most of the time whereas the Agent Handler expects good connectivity to ePO SQL DB. So if you have concerns about the speed or reliability of a WAN link I probably wouldn't put an AH in that site.