Simultaneous user limit
-
In my version of Vista (Business), when I share a drive, the max. # of simultaneous users is limited to 10. Is this because my version of Vista imposes this limit, or is it some pathetic feature Microsoft added to make Vista more "secure"? Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
In my version of Vista (Business), when I share a drive, the max. # of simultaneous users is limited to 10. Is this because my version of Vista imposes this limit, or is it some pathetic feature Microsoft added to make Vista more "secure"? Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smiththis was also implemented in Xp ??
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
this was also implemented in Xp ??
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview ArchiveV. wrote:
this was also implemented in Xp ??
If it is, it's hidden (which is worse). It's not an option under XP to limit the number of simultaneous users, at least on my XP systems. IIRC, there's a limit with XP home, but not XP Pro. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
V. wrote:
this was also implemented in Xp ??
If it is, it's hidden (which is worse). It's not an option under XP to limit the number of simultaneous users, at least on my XP systems. IIRC, there's a limit with XP home, but not XP Pro. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
It's not an option under XP to limit the number of simultaneous users
no it's not an option :), the maximum allowed connections in Xp is 10. If I understood correctly you're talking about sharing a drive which counts as a network connection? (Or am I completely missing the ball here :confused:)
V. I found a living worth working for, but haven't found work worth living for.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
It's not an option under XP to limit the number of simultaneous users
no it's not an option :), the maximum allowed connections in Xp is 10. If I understood correctly you're talking about sharing a drive which counts as a network connection? (Or am I completely missing the ball here :confused:)
V. I found a living worth working for, but haven't found work worth living for.
V. wrote:
the maximum allowed connections in Xp is 10.
You're kidding?!?!?
V. wrote:
you're talking about sharing a drive which counts as a network connection?
Yes. Right click on the drive letter under My Computer, click on Properties, Sharing tab, enable sharing. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Marc Clifton wrote:
It's not an option under XP to limit the number of simultaneous users
no it's not an option :), the maximum allowed connections in Xp is 10. If I understood correctly you're talking about sharing a drive which counts as a network connection? (Or am I completely missing the ball here :confused:)
V. I found a living worth working for, but haven't found work worth living for.
Let me ask a different question. Is the "10 connections" a limit of concurrent connections per user or a maximum of 10 users? Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
V. wrote:
the maximum allowed connections in Xp is 10.
You're kidding?!?!?
V. wrote:
you're talking about sharing a drive which counts as a network connection?
Yes. Right click on the drive letter under My Computer, click on Properties, Sharing tab, enable sharing. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Marc Clifton wrote:
You're kidding?!?!?
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview ArchiveI've been researching this, this morning. It seems it affects only "half open" connections. Read more.[^] Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
In my version of Vista (Business), when I share a drive, the max. # of simultaneous users is limited to 10. Is this because my version of Vista imposes this limit, or is it some pathetic feature Microsoft added to make Vista more "secure"? Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
Is this because my version of Vista imposes this limit, or is it some pathetic feature Microsoft added to make Vista more "secure"?
Neither. It's to encourage you to buy a server, and a server OS licence to go with it. There's always been limitations in the desktop OS's to prevent them running as "proper servers". The same 10 connection limit is in force for HTTP connections to a web server.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Is this because my version of Vista imposes this limit, or is it some pathetic feature Microsoft added to make Vista more "secure"?
Neither. It's to encourage you to buy a server, and a server OS licence to go with it. There's always been limitations in the desktop OS's to prevent them running as "proper servers". The same 10 connection limit is in force for HTTP connections to a web server.
Graham Bradshaw wrote:
It's to encourage you to buy a server, and a server OS licence to go with it.
What about an intranet setup, where I might have 20 or 30 computers that all need to access each other's files. What will happen if more than 10 computers all try to access files on one machine? Will the 11'th fail? And yes, this is a very special situation, but it's one my client will encounter. Each computer has a repository of movies, and it's at least possible that all other computers on the network might be accessing movies all on one computer. Unlikely, and we go to measures to prevent that, but I'd like to know if XP Pro will be unhappy with that situation. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Graham Bradshaw wrote:
It's to encourage you to buy a server, and a server OS licence to go with it.
What about an intranet setup, where I might have 20 or 30 computers that all need to access each other's files. What will happen if more than 10 computers all try to access files on one machine? Will the 11'th fail? And yes, this is a very special situation, but it's one my client will encounter. Each computer has a repository of movies, and it's at least possible that all other computers on the network might be accessing movies all on one computer. Unlikely, and we go to measures to prevent that, but I'd like to know if XP Pro will be unhappy with that situation. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithYes, it will fail. 2000 Pro/XP Pro/Vista all have a 10 concurrent connection limit. This applies to all connections together, so 5 people using a share on the computer plus 5 people using the web server will max its connections and if 1 more person tries to access anything on the computer remotely it fails. This has been part of Windows for ages, the only version that didn't have the 10 limit (other than server versions) was XP Home which had a limit of 5. Microsoft did not design these home/workstation OSes to run as production servers, that is why they sell a server OS. Windows 2000 Pro - 10 connections Windows XP Home - 5 connections Windows XP Pro - 10 connections (should include pre sp2) Vista - 10 connections Server 2003 Small Business - Matches the CALs installed on it, 10 cals = 10 connections (this is enforced by the OS) Server 2003 Standard/Ent - does not enforce a limit like SBS but you are supposed to have matching cals but it offers different licensing options.
-
Graham Bradshaw wrote:
It's to encourage you to buy a server, and a server OS licence to go with it.
What about an intranet setup, where I might have 20 or 30 computers that all need to access each other's files. What will happen if more than 10 computers all try to access files on one machine? Will the 11'th fail? And yes, this is a very special situation, but it's one my client will encounter. Each computer has a repository of movies, and it's at least possible that all other computers on the network might be accessing movies all on one computer. Unlikely, and we go to measures to prevent that, but I'd like to know if XP Pro will be unhappy with that situation. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
What about an intranet setup, where I might have 20 or 30 computers that all need to access each other's files. What will happen if more than 10 computers all try to access files on one machine? Will the 11'th fail?
Then you have a very bad designed setup ;) Anyway, this limit has been there since NT4 (probably since NT3.5) for the workstation editions.
- Anders My new photo website[^]
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
What about an intranet setup, where I might have 20 or 30 computers that all need to access each other's files. What will happen if more than 10 computers all try to access files on one machine? Will the 11'th fail?
Then you have a very bad designed setup ;) Anyway, this limit has been there since NT4 (probably since NT3.5) for the workstation editions.
- Anders My new photo website[^]
Anders Molin wrote:
Then you have a very bad designed setup
I have a client requirement to distribute AVI files across numerous systems. When the first AVI is created, it sits on one machine. It becomes available to all the other machines for viewing. In the meantime, the AVI is being replicated to other machines, however, given that the AVI file is in the gigabytes, this takes time. There is a potential for all the machines on the network to be accessing the same AVI at the same time. We could to point-to-point streaming, but streaming opens up another can of worms when dealing with interactive kiosks. The idea of requiring a server OS to handle this situation is ludicrous to me. What would you suggest? Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Anders Molin wrote:
Then you have a very bad designed setup
I have a client requirement to distribute AVI files across numerous systems. When the first AVI is created, it sits on one machine. It becomes available to all the other machines for viewing. In the meantime, the AVI is being replicated to other machines, however, given that the AVI file is in the gigabytes, this takes time. There is a potential for all the machines on the network to be accessing the same AVI at the same time. We could to point-to-point streaming, but streaming opens up another can of worms when dealing with interactive kiosks. The idea of requiring a server OS to handle this situation is ludicrous to me. What would you suggest? Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithYou could put a NAS in the middle, have the machine currently hosting the AVI, copy it to the NAS and then all the clients could get it from there.