→ 🚀What's New? Join Us for the Fall Product Launch! Register Now !

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
LamerIT
Engaged Sweeper
Hi,
I deleted a couple of PC that were connected using LsAgent. i (probably) deleted them even from the "LsAgent assets" page (p.s. pretty unuseful this page by the way, because every asset deleted in this page are shown as an asset with no info as all, so i will not able to recover a single PC chosing from a list with 5 identical empty rows).
The agent is still installed on this PCs, i never removed it, so, i expected the database to be populated again with the assets deleted, but didn't happen.

Isn't the agent still trying to communicate with the server? is there a list of this machines in LS server where i can see these machines deleted and that are trying to communicate?

hope i explained well my doubts.
Thank you in advance.
3 REPLIES 3
StillGoing
Engaged Sweeper III

I ran into similar issues a while back. I deleted a lot of 'unidentified' entries from the LsAgent assets page. I discovered that, at least in some cases, the agent did eventually check in but that initiated an uninstall of the agent from that asset. It was not always successful, and when it wasn't it left the agent in a very messy state.

I also had a deployment package in place to install the agent where it was not installed, and I did see instances (based on the agent install logs on the endpoints) where the asset appeared to go through several uninstall/install cycles before we ended up with a manageable asset again. It wasn't pretty, and in some cases I had to manually intervene to cleanup the agent directory on the endpoint before the agent would reinstall.

I heartily endorse opening a support case on this item if you show solid examples. And if you get more details on how this works (or should work), please share!

Mister_Nobody
Honored Sweeper II

You can create support case

https://www.lansweeper.com/contact-support/

 

seto60
Engaged Sweeper

Facing exactly the same problem. This behaviour of the LsAgent scanning is terrible and did suprise me in a negative way.