lsPush vs lsClient

[mrdaytrade]

We are currently using active scan and a logon script using lsclient to obtain user logon information. Would we be conserving bandwith/traffic if we changed the logon script to use lspush instead.

If this is true, it would be very helpfull when users log on at remote locations with slow connections. Could we then exclude the remote OU's in active scan using the lsManager?

[Hemoco]

We are currently using active scan and a logon script using lsclient to obtain user logon information. Would we be conserving bandwith/traffic if we changed the logon script to use lspush instead.

Yes

If this is true, it would be very helpfull when users log on at remote locations with slow connections. Could we then exclude the remote OU's in active scan using the lsManager?

You can only include OU's in active scanning.

[mrdaytrade]

If this is true, it would be very helpfull when users log on at remote locations with slow connections. Could we then exclude the remote OU's in active scan using the lsManager?

You can only include OU's in active scanning.


Excluding OU's in Active Scanning would be a nice feature. We always looked for that ability. Having so many OU's it would be easier to exclude the few instead of including the many. That’s why we've stayed away from the OU filtering. OU's are added frequently, updating the new addition in lsManage might get overlooked.

At times we do get complaints from the OU's that operate down state when Active Scan hits there OU, that their "connectivity slows down". Would be especially useful to exclude the limited number of OU's that are running on a slow connection from active scan and just use lspush. Just a thought.