How many PC on a Peer to Peer network

[Margy]

How many computers can you have on a peer to peer networking that is running
on a mixtures of XP Home, XP Pro and 1 computer on Vista? There are 4
printers on a Dlink network Server and 1 printer is a network printer plugged
into the switch / hub.

Many thanks
Margy
Pinetown, South Africa

 

[Richard G. Harper]

As many as you have network ports for.

 

[Bob Willard]

How many computers can you have on a peer to peer networking that is running
on a mixtures of XP Home, XP Pro and 1 computer on Vista? There are 4
printers on a Dlink network Server and 1 printer is a network printer plugged
into the switch / hub.

Many thanks
Margy
Pinetown, South Africa

With a standard mask, the address limit is >250.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

How many computers can you have on a peer to peer networking that is
running on a mixtures of XP Home, XP Pro and 1 computer on Vista?
There are 4 printers on a Dlink network Server and 1 printer is a
network printer plugged into the switch / hub.

Many thanks
Margy
Pinetown, South Africa

Well...that's not really a complete/useful question as written. What do you
want to network/share?

You'll need a switch that can handle as many computers (or other networked
devices) as you've got.

You can share an Internet connection behind a router/gateway between 254
hosts if you use a 24-bit subnet mask . (or is it 253? I get confused.
Anyway, more than you've got, I'm sure)

You can't share *files* on one of your workstations with more than a
handful - 5 connections to XP Home, 10 to Pro, and you haven't mentioned
your version of Vista.

If you have more than a tiny handful of computers and want to share files,
get a server OS.

 

[smlunatick]

With a standard mask, the address limit is >250.

Not really! Most networks can have 254 devices (combination of
printers / routers / PCs / servers.) On the 192.168.xxx.yyy, yyy can
be from 1 to 254. 0 and 255 are usually reserved for general network
"overhead."

Sharing files and printer -- Windows XP Pro -- 10 shares
Home -- 5
shares

 

[Jack \(MVP-Networking\).]

Hi
you can install on the network as as many as you want.
However there is a limit to the concurrent connections.
WinXP Home allows only 5 concurrent connections, WinXP Pro 10 Concurrent
connections.
Vista 10 concurrent connections.
Next step, if you need more than 10 concurrent connections is Windows 2003
SBS, 75 concurrent connections.
Jack (MVP-Networking).

 

[Bob Willard]

Not really! Most networks can have 254 devices (combination of
printers / routers / PCs / servers.) On the 192.168.xxx.yyy, yyy can
be from 1 to 254. 0 and 255 are usually reserved for general network
"overhead."

Sharing files and printer -- Windows XP Pro -- 10 shares
Home -- 5
shares

Uh, really. You see, 254 is >250.

{You are right that the limit is not just "computers"; anything that
swallows an IPA counts.}

 

[Anteaus]

In principle the answer is ten, since that is the max number of clients an XP
pro 'server' can service at one go.

In any case if you have more than a very few computers I would suggest
getting a server. This is comparable to buying a filing-cabinet instead of
telling people to just put the papers in any free drawer they can find.

An XP Pro computer (or Windows 2000) can in fact act as a server for up to
then users, beyond that you need a bespoke server OS which could be Linux,
Windows Server 2003, or Small Business Server.

Linux; Low cost and very reliable, but not so easy to set-up or manage.
Great if you have a unix guru on-hand, maybe not so great if you don't.

Server 2003 Standard; Flexible and effective, will run on hardware of
moderate power, and do most things you need.

SBS; Offers a comprehensive set of features, but you have less control over
the way it works. Needs powerful hardware, or it will run like treacle.

 

[smlunatick]

On Apr 1, 7:38 am, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" >

You'll need a switch that can handle as many computers (or other networked
devices) as you've got.

You are not limited to one (1) switch. You can expand the number of
netowrk ports by "daisy-chaining" additional switches. However, per
to my personal experience, after 30 network connections, it becomes a
"pain" to manage all the connections by yourself.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

On Apr 1, 7:38 am, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" >

You'll need a switch that can handle as many computers (or other
networked devices) as you've got.

You are not limited to one (1) switch.

Of course not. I'm just trying to keep things simple for the OP ;-)

 

[Jack \(MVP-Networking\).]

Hi
Well, let say you have a small office with 16 computers using Win XP Pro.
One of computers is used as file server for Billing and other files.
All the workers would have the potential to use the server and it would work
well as long as only 10 workers use the server at the exact same time. It
might not be the best arrangement but in many small offices Not all workers
do the same thing at the same time.
Otherwise, as I mentioned above,
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx
Jack (MVP-Networking).

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Hi
Well, let say you have a small office with 16 computers using Win XP
Pro. One of computers is used as file server for Billing and other
files. All the workers would have the potential to use the server and it
would work well as long as only 10 workers use the server at the
exact same time. It might not be the best arrangement but in many
small offices Not all workers do the same thing at the same time.
Otherwise, as I mentioned above,
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx

The main problem is, it isn't a simple matter of "one computer = one
connection" - one workstation may have several connections/handles open at
the same time. So, even if you have 11 computers & one XP Pro box acting as
the "server" don't expect it to work reliably.

Anything beyond a small handful of home/home office PCs really doesn't work
well as a workgroup, IMO. A domain lets you centrally control / manage your
security & data storage. 16 would be far beyond what I'd ever want to
support in a peer to peer network.

 

[smlunatick]

The main problem is, it isn't a simple matter of "one computer = one
connection" - one workstation may have several connections/handles open at
the same time. So, even if you have 11 computers & one XP Pro box acting as
the "server" don't expect it to work reliably.

Anything beyond a small handful of home/home office PCs really doesn't work
well as a workgroup, IMO. A domain lets you centrally control / manage your
security & data storage. 16 would be far beyond what I'd ever want to
support in a peer to peer network.





- Show quoted text -

One other possibility is to consider some type of network hard drive
(Network Attached Storage - NAS) and have the file stored on this.
Serveral NAS units seem to not use Windows at all for their
"controlling" operating system.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

One other possibility is to consider some type of network hard drive
(Network Attached Storage - NAS) and have the file stored on this.
Serveral NAS units seem to not use Windows at all for their
"controlling" operating system.

Yep - a lot run Linux. But you don't get a nice manageable AD domain that
way, of course.

 

[smlunatick]

In principle the answer is ten, since that is the max number of clients anXP
pro 'server' can service at one go.

In any case if you have more than a very few computers I would suggest
getting a server. This is comparable to buying a filing-cabinet instead of
telling people to just put the papers in any free drawer they can find.

An XP Pro computer (or Windows 2000) can in fact act as a server for up to
then users, beyond that you need a bespoke server OS which could be Linux,
Windows Server 2003,  or Small Business Server.

Linux; Low cost and very reliable, but not so easy to set-up or manage.
Great if you have a unix guru on-hand, maybe not so great if you don't.

Server 2003 Standard; Flexible and effective, will run on hardware of
moderate power, and do most things you need.

SBS; Offers a comprehensive set of features, but you have less control over
the way it works. Needs powerful hardware, or it will run like treacle.





- Show quoted text -

Peer to Peer networking does not really ever need AD.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Peer to Peer networking does not really ever need AD.

Of course not...that's true merely by definition. If you're using AD, you're
not using a workgroup, and hence aren't using peer to peer networking in
this sense. However, that doesn't mean that AD is not better & easier to
manage than peer to peer networking.