Number of connection to a computer has exceeded limit

[Guest]

There are 11 computers in our office, networked via 2 routers
9 of them on Win XP, 1 Win 2000, and 1 Win98
On Computer A (WinXP-Home) placed an Access database file, contains tables
of data.
On Computer B, C, D, E, F and G are placed Access database file, containes
queries and forms linked to database tables on Computer A

Now Computer A is on,
Computer B, C, D and E are on, running the Access file which links to the
Access tables on Computer A
Then computer F failed to reach Computer A via network neighbourhood or the
link table manager in its own Access
It returns an error suggesting the number of connections to computer A has
exceed the maximum.
Does it mean a computer can only be connected actively by 4 other computers
the maximum?
In fact I need more the computer A be accessed by all computers at my office
at one time (i.e., 10 computers). How can I do this?

 

[Bob Willard]

There are 11 computers in our office, networked via 2 routers
9 of them on Win XP, 1 Win 2000, and 1 Win98
On Computer A (WinXP-Home) placed an Access database file, contains tables
of data.
On Computer B, C, D, E, F and G are placed Access database file, containes
queries and forms linked to database tables on Computer A

Now Computer A is on,
Computer B, C, D and E are on, running the Access file which links to the
Access tables on Computer A
Then computer F failed to reach Computer A via network neighbourhood or the
link table manager in its own Access
It returns an error suggesting the number of connections to computer A has
exceed the maximum.
Does it mean a computer can only be connected actively by 4 other computers
the maximum?
In fact I need more the computer A be accessed by all computers at my office
at one time (i.e., 10 computers). How can I do this?

XP has limits on the number of concurrent inbound connections; for XP HE it
is 5, and for XP PRO it is 10. Usually, a single PC client represents a
single connection to a server; so, if you upgrade Computer A from XP HE to
XP PRO, it will probably solve your immediate problem (until you add one
more PC to the mix).

 

[Jack \(MVP-Networking\).]

Hi
Well, it is time for Windows 2003 SBS,
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx
Jack (MVP-Networking).

 

[Guest]

Hi Jack

Do you think I can upgrade my Computer A from XP-Home to SBS 2003R2?
So that I can put my Access data file on Computer A
to be accessed by Computer B, C, D, E, F ...... at the same time via their
respective Access program?
Spec of Computer A : Intel Celeron 2.4GHz, 256M Ram, 80G Hard Disk

Or I have to purchase a new computer of Server grade, (like those IBM
server) to run SBS2003R2?

Thanks
Simon Wong

 

[Bob Willard]

Hi Jack

Do you think I can upgrade my Computer A from XP-Home to SBS 2003R2?
So that I can put my Access data file on Computer A
to be accessed by Computer B, C, D, E, F ...... at the same time via their
respective Access program?
Spec of Computer A : Intel Celeron 2.4GHz, 256M Ram, 80G Hard Disk

Or I have to purchase a new computer of Server grade, (like those IBM
server) to run SBS2003R2?

Thanks
Simon Wong

That PC needs more memory. I suggest upgrading to 1GB if it supports
that much; else, replace it. {You might get by with 512MB if necessary,
but I'd go the full 1GB or more if the motherboard supports it.}

 

[Guest]

With 11, it's time to think in terms of a fileserver.

Which one depends on your needs, and this requires some thought.

SBS will need a computer with muscle, it's a resource-hungry beast,
incorporating numerous add-ons that most people will never use. The standard
W2003 Server is a more lightweight package and wil run acceptably on most
desktop hardware. Costwise SBS is about the same price for the package itself
but a lot more expensive to add CALs to. Key question is if you need all the
extras of SBS. If not, then the standard Server 2003 might be cheaper for 11
users, plus offering greater flexibility. IMHO the only real reason to go for
SBS is if you want Exchange Server, in which case it does offer a substantial
saving over buying that separately.

Other option is of course Linux. Not quite so easy to setup, but costs $0.00
and gives unlimted CALs. ;-) If your needs are for a pure fileserver then
Linux has great potential, less so if the server must run specialist
processes.