Max PCs on a workgroup for LAN party

[Guest]

Hi

Im organising a LAN party for 30 PCs, Im familiar with setting up workgroups
but all the information I've read suggests that workgroups should be kept to
a small number of PCs (not more than 10). Can I run a LAN for gaming using a
workgroup with 30 PCs and will it effect network performance or will I have
to set up a proper Client-Server network.

Cheers

 

[Chuck]

Hi

Im organising a LAN party for 30 PCs, Im familiar with setting up workgroups
but all the information I've read suggests that workgroups should be kept to
a small number of PCs (not more than 10). Can I run a LAN for gaming using a
workgroup with 30 PCs and will it effect network performance or will I have
to set up a proper Client-Server network.

Cheers

The limitation you're referring to is simultaneous Incoming Connections to
computers providing shares under Microsoft Windows sharing services.
<http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314882>

The limitation has nothing to do, directly, with workgroup size. It may have
nothing to do with your LAN party setup either.

Do you need to setup a workgroup to do online gaming? Most online gaming that
I've had contact with provides its own client - server infrastructure that is
not related to Microsoft File & Printer Sharing.

Network performance may be another issue altogether. For intense network use,
an efficient physical network setup is essential. Again, that's not related to
workgroup setup.

You might get better information in another forum such as alt.gaming.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Guest]

Many thanks Chuck, 1 more question on your reply:

If one of the PCs was running a game server (Local only) and the other 30
PCs were trying to connect to the game this would be 30 simultaneous Incoming
Connections to that PC, and so would not work?

 

[Guest]

As far as hooking up 30 PC's on a network, that depends on how you set up the
IP address and subnet mask. Using 192.168.1.x and 255.255.255.0 you can
connect 254 PC's up. Yes, the more traffic you have the slower the network
will be - I would use a switch instead of a hub.
Can the server PC handle 30 connections? That depends on how the program is
set up. For example, Windows XP pro will only allow 10 connections at a time
for file sharing. My guess is that if your game is set up to be a server for
online gaming that it should handle 30 connections. Check the users guide
for maximum connections to be sure.
Hope this helps.

 

[Chuck]

Many thanks Chuck, 1 more question on your reply:

If one of the PCs was running a game server (Local only) and the other 30
PCs were trying to connect to the game this would be 30 simultaneous Incoming
Connections to that PC, and so would not work?

Kev,

If your Game Server depends upon Microsoft File and Printer Sharing for serving
gaming, then the 5 or 10 connection limit will be a problem.

Please check the documentation for your Gaming Server program. Most gaming
servers operate at a lower level than file and printer sharing - the players
connect to a specific ip addressort. This will not require MFPS, nor have its
connection limit. But there may be a limit on connections placed there by the
creators of the gaming server program.

Let's start with two questions:
1) What game (gaming server program) do you intend to run?
2) What Operating System do you have on your server?

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Guest]

Hi again

I will be running various games, Counterstrike, Halo, BF1942 etc. I used to
run a small Gaming centre but as I only had 10 PCs I had a workgroup Network
and all worked fine. Now that Im thinking of running a larger event I'm a bit
out of my depth.

I thought I might be able to run a peer to peer network (workgroup) and use
one or 2 of the PCs to host the games as I did at my old centre. But it seems
that the number of PCs might be too great for that.

I have downloaded a trail of Server 2003 and I'm looking at how to set this
up, as with one of the other posts below I'm trying to figure out how to
connect XP home to a domain.

I Appreciate all your feedback.

 

[Guest]

Hi Steve

When I have run PCs hosting games (on a LAN) in the past I haven't had to
enable file and print sharing an any of the PCs including the host for other
PCs on the network to see and join the machine hosting the game. Are you
saying that this might bypass the MFPS restriction mentioned by Chuck below?

Cheers

 

[Chuck]

Hi again

I will be running various games, Counterstrike, Halo, BF1942 etc. I used to
run a small Gaming centre but as I only had 10 PCs I had a workgroup Network
and all worked fine. Now that Im thinking of running a larger event I'm a bit
out of my depth.

I thought I might be able to run a peer to peer network (workgroup) and use
one or 2 of the PCs to host the games as I did at my old centre. But it seems
that the number of PCs might be too great for that.

I have downloaded a trail of Server 2003 and I'm looking at how to set this
up, as with one of the other posts below I'm trying to figure out how to
connect XP home to a domain.

Kev,

To start with, you can't connect XP Home to a domain. You'll have to have XP
Pro to do that.

You don't have to use a server (a computer running Server 2003) on a domain -
you can use a workgroup if you wish.

You can have workgroup authentication, with servers. Just as you can have
domains, with client computers sharing data peer to peer.

If you run a trial version of S2003, there may be a connection limit there.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Guest]

Many thanks Chuck for all your help

Kev,

To start with, you can't connect XP Home to a domain. You'll have to have XP
Pro to do that.

You don't have to use a server (a computer running Server 2003) on a domain -
you can use a workgroup if you wish.

You can have workgroup authentication, with servers. Just as you can have
domains, with client computers sharing data peer to peer.

If you run a trial version of S2003, there may be a connection limit there.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

When I have run PCs hosting games (on a LAN) in the past I haven't had to
enable file and print sharing an any of the PCs including the host for other
PCs on the network to see and join the machine hosting the game. Are you
saying that this might bypass the MFPS restriction mentioned by Chuck below?

Kev,

I think so too, and I think you don't even have to disable File
and Printer Sharing. It is enough if it is not actually used.

By the way, I also think that installing a server or even a
domain controller is totally beside the point for gaming.
Moreover, many gamers use Windows XP Home, and that cannot even
join a domain.

Hans-Georg

 

[Chuck]

Hi Steve

When I have run PCs hosting games (on a LAN) in the past I haven't had to
enable file and print sharing an any of the PCs including the host for other
PCs on the network to see and join the machine hosting the game. Are you
saying that this might bypass the MFPS restriction mentioned by Chuck below?

Hi Kev,

I didn't think MFPS is required to host a game. So you should be able to run
Counterstrike, or any other similar game, using any operating system. MSHome or
better.

Your only limitation is the physical network (and the physical capacity of your
server). Which is why LAN parties benefit from putting everybody in the same
room, on the same local network.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Guest]

Hi All

So to sum up your saying that I will be able to have 20 to 30 PCs on a
peer to peer workgroup network (running XPPRO or HOME) and use one of the
machines to host a game (asuming the game supports that number of players at
the same time)?

Sorry if I keep going on, but I dont want to organise the event, advertise
it as a 30 player LAN party and find I can only get a max of 10 players on
any game at a one time due to the workgroup limitations, i'd be linched

 

[Chuck]

Hi All

So to sum up your saying that I will be able to have 20 to 30 PCs on a
peer to peer workgroup network (running XPPRO or HOME) and use one of the
machines to host a game (asuming the game supports that number of players at
the same time)?

Sorry if I keep going on, but I dont want to organise the event, advertise
it as a 30 player LAN party and find I can only get a max of 10 players on
any game at a one time due to the workgroup limitations, i'd be linched

Kev,

Assuming that your hardware (network / server) supports 30 players. Depending
upon the games in play, that could be the key question.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Guest]

I do not think we are all on the same page here. The software you run for
the game is your "server". You do not need Server 2003 to run it (unless it
is a requirement of your software - check your instructions). You most
likely do not even need to have a workgroup set up to run your program -
again check your instructions. The bottom line is that you will need to
check your instructions to determine what OS is required and the maximum
number of connections accepted.

Hope this helps

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

Im organising a LAN party for 30 PCs, Im familiar with setting up workgroups
but all the information I've read suggests that workgroups should be kept to
a small number of PCs (not more than 10). Can I run a LAN for gaming using a
workgroup with 30 PCs and will it effect network performance or will I have
to set up a proper Client-Server network.

Kev,

I happen to have a LAN party in my place over this weekend, and
I just asked the participants (at breakfast about more than
10 computers in one game.

They confirmed to me that they recently had up to 17 computers
in one game, mostly playing Battlefield 1942 and Desert Combat,
without any problems and with good performance. That was a
network of mostly Windows XP computers partly Home, partly Pro,
no server operating system, Windows Networking not set up, and
connected through several small 100 Mbit/s switches. Most could
still use File and Printer Sharing to copy files around.

Hans-Georg

 

[Guest]

Many thanks Chuck youve helped a lot and saved me a lot of time and money.

 

[Guest]

Thanks Steve

I do not think we are all on the same page here. The software you run for
the game is your "server". You do not need Server 2003 to run it (unless it
is a requirement of your software - check your instructions). You most
likely do not even need to have a workgroup set up to run your program -
again check your instructions. The bottom line is that you will need to
check your instructions to determine what OS is required and the maximum
number of connections accepted.

Hope this helps

 

[Guest]

Thanks Hans

Kev,

I happen to have a LAN party in my place over this weekend, and
I just asked the participants (at breakfast about more than
10 computers in one game.

They confirmed to me that they recently had up to 17 computers
in one game, mostly playing Battlefield 1942 and Desert Combat,
without any problems and with good performance. That was a
network of mostly Windows XP computers partly Home, partly Pro,
no server operating system, Windows Networking not set up, and
connected through several small 100 Mbit/s switches. Most could
still use File and Printer Sharing to copy files around.

Hans-Georg

 

[Chuck]

Many thanks Chuck youve helped a lot and saved me a lot of time and money.

That's what these forums are for, Kev. Let us know how the party went
afterwards.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.