connection limit reached

[Doug Taylor]

Hiya

We have 6 pcs connecting to a 7 pc we call our server. The network is peer
to peer all the machines including the server are running windows xp pro.
Since adding the seventh machine to the network we are unable to map drives
to the server from different machines intermittently. When mapping from dos
using the "net use" command we are told that the maximum number of
connections has been reached. When I look at the server and run the net
session command (or go through computer management sessions) we can see
the ten connections, but it is showing multiple connections for the same
computer. We disconnected the sessions and browsed to the server through
network neighborhood (or run \\server) and Net session shows one
connection. If we then map a drive to the servers ip address we see another
session being created.

Are these really two connections and are we really exceeding our limit of
ten users?
Why does mapping a drive using the net use command and the ip address eg
net use v: \\192.168.0.1\data create one session and on the same machine
using net use g: \\server\data create another session.
If we map any more drives future sessions are not created.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Daniel Crichton]

Doug wrote on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:55:53 +1300:

Hiya

We have 6 pcs connecting to a 7 pc we call our server. The network is
peer to peer all the machines including the server are running windows xp
pro. Since adding the seventh machine to the network we are unable to map
drives to the server from different machines intermittently. When mapping
from dos using the "net use" command we are told that the maximum number
of connections has been reached. When I look at the server and run the
net session command (or go through computer management sessions) we can
see the ten connections, but it is showing multiple connections for the
same computer. We disconnected the sessions and browsed to the server
through network neighborhood (or run \\server) and Net session shows one
connection. If we then map a drive to the servers ip address we see
another session being created.

Are these really two connections and are we really exceeding our limit of
ten users?
Why does mapping a drive using the net use command and the ip address eg
net use v: \\192.168.0.1\data create one session and on the same
machine using net use g: \\server\data create another session.
If we map any more drives future sessions are not created.

It's not a ten user limit, it's a ten connections limit. Each net use will
create a connection because it's a persistent connection to a drive letter
mapping. If you browse shares instead (for instance, have a shortcut to
\\server\data instead of a drive letter mapping), the connection is opened
until the browsing is complete.

Either use only one drive mapping per machine, or look at replacing the
"server" with Windows 2003 Server and CALs (the Windows Server 2003 box
comes with 5 CALs, so that's half your network covered). Shop around for
prices - it's often easy to buy well under the RRP from a reseller (eg. W2K3
Server box + a 5 CAL pack to cover 10 users total has a US dollar RRP of
$1200, but you'd likely get it for 1/3 or more less than that).

Dan

 

[Gordon]

Either use only one drive mapping per machine, or look at replacing the
"server" with Windows 2003 Server and CALs

For which you have to pay twice - once for the server software and then
for EACH CAL - <aside - what an MS rip-off, having to buy licences to
connect to a server software you already have a licence for>

I suggest the Op looks at a Linux server - free and no CALs to worry about.

 

[Gordon]

Hiya

We have 6 pcs connecting to a 7 pc we call our server.
Snip

Are these really two connections and are we really exceeding our limit of
ten users?

As said, it's ten CONNECTIONS not ten Users.
I suggest you look at setting up a Linux server - free and no CALs to
worry about.
Have a look here:
http://www.harrysufehmi.com/phpwiki/index.php/SettingUpLinuxServer

 

[Daniel Crichton]

Gordon wrote on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:10:14 +0000:

For which you have to pay twice - once for the server software and then
for EACH CAL - <aside - what an MS rip-off, having to buy licences to
connect to a server software you already have a licence for>

You make it sound like every CAL costs as much as the initial server
license, which is blatantly false. At least MS are up-front about their
licensing costs, and it's a simple model. As you pointed out there are
alternatives, that's your choice but the easy solution for a Windows based
network is to stick to Windows.

Dan

 

[Gordon]

Gordon wrote on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:10:14 +0000:

the easy solution for a Windows based
network is to stick to Windows.

And your reasoning behind that is ...what? Linux servers are just as easy
(if not more so) to set up as Windows servers, and "talk" to Windows
clients just as well, if not better, than Windows servers. There's no
learning problem, as the Op will have to learn Server 2003 anyway. They
are more secure, and, as I pointed out there are NO licencing problems or
additional licences to purchase. They also come with mail servers and nntp
servers already to run out of the box included in the "price". Windows
2003 server comes with both those?

 

[Gordon]

Gordon wrote on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:10:14 +0000:

You make it sound like every CAL costs as much as the initial server
license, which is blatantly false.

In my view you shouldn't have to pay at ALL to access a server software
that you have already licenced. Why should you? That's like purchasing a
copy of Windows XP (which is allegedly a multi-user system) and then
paying an additional cost for each user you set up! Ridiculous!

 

[Kerry Brown]

Hiya

We have 6 pcs connecting to a 7 pc we call our server. The network
is peer to peer all the machines including the server are running
windows xp pro. Since adding the seventh machine to the network we
are unable to map drives to the server from different machines
intermittently. When mapping from dos using the "net use" command we
are told that the maximum number of connections has been reached. When I
look at the server and run the net session command (or go
through computer management sessions) we can see the ten
connections, but it is showing multiple connections for the same
computer. We disconnected the sessions and browsed to the server
through network neighborhood (or run \\server) and Net session shows
one connection. If we then map a drive to the servers ip address we
see another session being created.
Are these really two connections and are we really exceeding our
limit of ten users?
Why does mapping a drive using the net use command and the ip
address eg net use v: \\192.168.0.1\data create one session and on
the same machine using net use g: \\server\data create another
session. If we map any more drives future sessions are not created.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

As others have already mentioned you have reached the point where you need a
server operating system. Take a look at Windows Small Business Server. It is
less expensive than Windows Server and has many extra features. The
limitation is that you are limited to 75 users.

The other alternative is Linux. If all you want is to share files it is
relatively easy to set up. If you want network management as well as sharing
files SBS or Windows server with active directory is the way to go.

Kerry

 

[Daniel Crichton]

Gordon wrote on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:02:51 +0000:

And your reasoning behind that is ...what? Linux servers are just as easy
(if not more so) to set up as Windows servers, and "talk" to Windows
clients just as well, if not better, than Windows servers. There's no
learning problem, as the Op will have to learn Server 2003 anyway. They
are more secure, and, as I pointed out there are NO licencing problems or
additional licences to purchase. They also come with mail servers and nntp
servers already to run out of the box included in the "price". Windows
2003 server comes with both those?

Yes, Windows 2003 comes with SMTP and NNTP (as did NT4 and Windows 2000), as
part of IIS.

And as to admin, Windows is Windows. There's not much extra to learn to run
a Windows Server. With Linux, if you have no previous experience, there is
much more to learn. I haven't touched Linux in just over a year - back when
I was running game servers I had much less problems getting the games I was
running to run on Windows servers than on Linux, and on the same hardware. I
stick with Windows Serves now because I know them, and because the other
software we use requires it (the CRM system we use only works on Windows
2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000/2005) - migrating away from that is not an
option.

As I said before, there are alternatives. I never said "don't use Linux",
did I?

Dan

 

[Daniel Crichton]

Gordon wrote on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:05:02 +0000:

In my view you shouldn't have to pay at ALL to access a server software
that you have already licenced. Why should you? That's like purchasing a
copy of Windows XP (which is allegedly a multi-user system) and then
paying an additional cost for each user you set up! Ridiculous!

The alternative is to level the field and pay much more. A person running 10
users on a server will then complain that they are paying the same amount as
a company with 100,000 users. I know which option I'd rather have. Microsoft
has staff to pay - it's a different business model to Open Source. Both have
their advantages and disadvantages.

Dan

 

[capitan]

In my view you shouldn't have to pay at ALL to access a server software
that you have already licenced. Why should you? That's like purchasing a
copy of Windows XP (which is allegedly a multi-user system) and then
paying an additional cost for each user you set up! Ridiculous!

I find Samba shares the easiest server service or role to set up on
Linux. And I am not a linux admin by any means, just a linux power user.