6 Replies Latest reply on Jul 23, 2009 6:44 AM by Bomber

    Chassis that is used for imaging HDD's

    Rookie

      We use several chassis and just plug HDD's into them and image them.  LANDesk is then picking up these machines due to XDD being installed on the devices in the subnet.  Is there away we can exclude these chassis?

       

      I'm thinking we either have to take XDD off the surrounding machines or restrict the comms for these devices.

        • 1. Re: Chassis that is used for imaging HDD's
          phoffmann SupportEmployee

          I'm a bit confused - a device should (at worst) only get picked up once. And then, only if it doesn't have a LANDesk agent installed.

           

          Is there a reason that you don't have LANdesk installed for those devices that image hard drives? If not - is there a reason why they're on the network in the first place (if you do a drive-to-drive copy)? If they're on the network - surely they too should be managed, no?

           

          A bit more explanation here in regards to the background would probably be helpful.

           

          Thanks.

           

          - Paul Hoffmann

          LANDesk EMEA Technical Lead

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Chassis that is used for imaging HDD's
            Rookie

            These devices don't have there own HDD's instaled.  Imaging is done via PXE boot.  After the disk is imaged it is booted and has a fresh image.  A client isn't fully installed but there are files on the image just no the registry infomation.  I'm thinking that after the image it does an ARP and thats where the new image is found but as there are files on the image LANDesk is thinking its semi managed and just adds a mini scan to the DB.

            • 3. Re: Chassis that is used for imaging HDD's
              phoffmann SupportEmployee

              So, the ARP request is fine that we intercept it (since that's XDD's job after all).

               

              However, once we have that, we essentially just prod the device to check whether it has an LDMS agent installed or not (obviously as per your description, they do not). This should be just a single entry though (since at this point, we use the MAC-address as the primary identifier, not having anything else we can use).

               

              So you can just move those imaging devices' scans in UDD into a seperate group, and they'll be out of your mind (we may update the information with the new IP addresses and so on, but there shouldn't be more records generated).

               

              Hope this explains reasonably well what happens?

               

              - Paul Hoffmann

              LANDesk EMEA Technical Lead

              • 4. Re: Chassis that is used for imaging HDD's
                Rookie

                Thats where the problems start as in the device doesn't get put in the UDD but in the live DB.  The mini scan returns the device named as the MAC address so that is how its is being referenced, so that bit is working fine.  How is it determined that the agent is installed?  If we take those files, registry info off the image we can do what you have suggested and problem solved.

                • 5. Re: Chassis that is used for imaging HDD's
                  phoffmann SupportEmployee

                  We try to talk to the Common Base Agent (assuming it exists).


                  If it does not exist (or a firewall blocks the receipt of the prod), we assume the device does not have the LANDesk agent installed, and report it as an unmanaged device. It's not a matter of file / registry stuff (since this would need an RPC authentication). It's checking whether a service exists - the common base agent service.

                   

                  - Paul Hoffmann

                  LANDesk EMEA Technical Lead

                  • 6. Re: Chassis that is used for imaging HDD's
                    Rookie

                    I see,  well we could hardly get the LDMS to stop looking for that.  We need to look at cleaning the image and then your suggestion would be the way to go.

                     

                    Thanks for your time.