Is there a samba server for windows?

[Greg Ercolano]

It's a weird question: is there an open source SMB server for Windows?

I don't mean set up a linux server and run a Samba server,
I mean using a windows machine, turning off windows own crippled
SMB server, and running an OSS server instead that is not hindered
by any particular number of connections?

MS's CAL licensing system drives people insane; first you
hit the 10 host workstation limit and realized you're screwed;
you MUST purchase Windows Server to up the licenses, so you upgrade
to Server, realize you still need to purchase CALs, purchase them
and still have intermittant errors accessing the server because
of running out of licenses, even disable the buggy License Logging
Service, read all the KB articles, and the "No more connections allowed"
errors /still/ persist.

It's frustrating when you get all the licenses you need and still
get these errors.

It just seems like someone would have written an OSS SMB server
so you can just turn off Microsoft's own, and use the uncrippled
SMB server instead.

Samba.org only seems to have servers for other platforms (unix, etc),
but I don't see one for windows.

Seems like there'd be a demand for a Windows SMB server on Windows,
strange as it sounds. Is there one? It's hard to search for, because
all the links show Unix smb servers.

 

[Jetro]

Right. So the licenses aren't the issue.

 

[Ace Fekay [MVP]]

In

It's a weird question: is there an open source SMB server for Windows?

I don't mean set up a linux server and run a Samba server,
I mean using a windows machine, turning off windows own crippled
SMB server, and running an OSS server instead that is not hindered
by any particular number of connections?

MS's CAL licensing system drives people insane; first you
hit the 10 host workstation limit and realized you're screwed;
you MUST purchase Windows Server to up the licenses, so you upgrade
to Server, realize you still need to purchase CALs, purchase them
and still have intermittant errors accessing the server because
of running out of licenses, even disable the buggy License Logging
Service, read all the KB articles, and the "No more connections
allowed" errors /still/ persist.

It's frustrating when you get all the licenses you need and still
get these errors.

It just seems like someone would have written an OSS SMB server
so you can just turn off Microsoft's own, and use the uncrippled
SMB server instead.

Samba.org only seems to have servers for other platforms (unix, etc),
but I don't see one for windows.

Seems like there'd be a demand for a Windows SMB server on Windows,
strange as it sounds. Is there one? It's hard to search for, because
all the links show Unix smb servers.

The 10 limit connection in NT4 workstation, Win2k Pro, and XP Pro is
hardcoded in the executable. It is designed to prevent anyone from using a
workstation as a server and to suggest purchase the proper operating system
for the business' needs. Since the code is similar, these desktop OSs have
that limit hard coded to prevent that.

I used to work for a distributor selling and integrating Pick System's
database that ran on many platforms, NT4 workstation and server included.
Whenever a customer required 11 or more users, we had to sell them the Pick
version for NT4 server because of that limit. They were trying to use
workstation as a server. The definition of a 'workgroup' is 10 or less users
in a de-centralized network. Anything more is recommended to use a domain
for ease of administration along with centralized authentication and
control.

So its by design...

--
Regards,
Ace

Please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroups
so all can benefit.

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees
and confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft Windows MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services

Security Is Like An Onion, It Has Layers
HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken;
A lifetime commitment for a pig.

 

[Ace Fekay [MVP]]

In Ace Fekay [MVP] <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&[email protected]>
asked for help and I offered my suggestions below:

Forgot to add... it would be a violation of the EULA to circumvent this
limit, hence why there may not be any products out there at all that do
this.

Ace

 

[Greg Ercolano]

In Ace Fekay [MVP] <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&[email protected]>
asked for help and I offered my suggestions below:

Forgot to add... it would be a violation of the EULA to circumvent this
limit, hence why there may not be any products out there at all that do
this.

Yes, if running Win2K Professional, it would violate section 1
of the win2k Pro EULA.

But if you're running win2k server and have the appropriate CALs,
which my client does, I would think they'd be unhindered from
installing an SMB alternative.

It's possible the end user may not even need the CALs if the
SMB server isn't doing authentication, if I'm interpreting
the Win2K Server EULA correctly. The situation is a private network,
so authentication is optional.

The correct thing would probably be to get them over to another
OS; I don't think their working model fits the Windows EULAs,
where all the workstations can potentially be file servers
from time to time. It's too cost restrictive for them to
upgrade all their workstations to server with tens of of CALs each.

 

[Ace Fekay [MVP]]

In

Yes, if running Win2K Professional, it would violate section 1
of the win2k Pro EULA.

But if you're running win2k server and have the appropriate CALs,
which my client does, I would think they'd be unhindered from
installing an SMB alternative.

If you are saying to take the server's CALs and apply them to a Win2k Pro
machine, they're not interchangeable.

It's possible the end user may not even need the CALs if the
SMB server isn't doing authentication, if I'm interpreting
the Win2K Server EULA correctly. The situation is a private network,
so authentication is optional.

That I'm not sure about. But can tell you it counts sessions, even if they
are from the same user logon. You can see them in Computer Management,
Sharing, sessions.

The correct thing would probably be to get them over to another
OS; I don't think their working model fits the Windows EULAs,
where all the workstations can potentially be file servers
from time to time. It's too cost restrictive for them to
upgrade all their workstations to server with tens of of CALs each.

I'm not sure what type of scenario you have, but if the users need to share
each of their resources with everyone else, then it's pretty much saying you
have a workgroup and not a domain? Wouldn't it be easier to be running AD
and share all the users' stuff from one server? Backups, centralized
authentication and centralized ontrol come to mind as advantages. But like I
said, I do not know your scenario, but I'm sure you would know best on how
to proceed based on that and what your users need.



--
Regards,
Ace

Please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroups
so all can benefit.

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees
and confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft Windows MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services

Security Is Like An Onion, It Has Layers
HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken;
A lifetime commitment for a pig.

 

[Michael Mullins]

For all the stress and unknowns I would suggest you bite
the bullet and PURCHASE Red Hat Enterprise Basic which
has only installation support, I think it costs less than
a copy of XP Pro, and run Samba on there. An idiot could
install it by just clicking Next, but you could also buy
a decent book on Red Hat Enterprise and read it. If that
sound like too much stress, then buy Windows for the
scenario you want and don't try to tweak it. It also has
the Next buttons, or you could also buy a decent book on
it.

 

[Greg Ercolano]

For all the stress and unknowns I would suggest you bite
the bullet and PURCHASE Red Hat Enterprise Basic

Thanks.

But I found out the software they're running on the workstation
is Windows only, so changing the OS is apparently not an option
for them at this time. :/

 

[Greg Ercolano]

If you are saying to take the server's CALs and apply them to a Win2k Pro
machine, they're not interchangeable.

No, I do understand that Win2K Pro is hardwired for 10
connections only, and does not support CALs.

It's darn annoying though; sometimes situations call for
the need to use workstations as a server for data under
certain special circumstances. Ours is a 'seti@home' kind
of scenario; distributed computing of large amounts of data
residing on hardware attached to each workstation.

The fact one can't add CALs to a workstation is really
bad.

It means these folks will have to upgrade all their
workstations to server, which they're investigating
by setting up two test scenarios. But the expense
is significant, and most feel unwarranted. That's a lot
of money to spend, just to work around the fact MS
decided to put a self-crippling hard wired line of code
in their SMB server; 'if ( connections > 10 ) Fail()'.

That I'm not sure about. But can tell you it counts sessions, even if they
are from the same user logon.

Yes, I believe there's one connection for every volume you access.
If using mapped drives, then one for each map, eg. if you have
X:, Y: and Z: mapped to different volumes on the same server.
(eyes roll)

And in the scenario in question, there will be more than one
connection from different users on each remote client, so that
will mean even more connections.

The scenario in question is a distributed processing system,
sort of like a "seti@home" distributed processing system,
where remote workstations may be used to process data from
a single workstation's drive.

I'm not sure what type of scenario you have, but if the users need to share
each of their resources with everyone else, then it's pretty much saying you
have a workgroup and not a domain? Wouldn't it be easier to be running AD
and share all the users' stuff from one server?

The data is actually video images that are stored on each
workstation's real time video disk player. It's a large amount
of data that would take too long to move to a server for processing.
The workstations are all networked off a fast backbone.

I did recommend they put all the data on the server, but they
were not able to work that way; takes too long to centralize
all their data because it's so voluminous. It's an unusual situation
because of the hardware they're working with. It's a video
production company.

I think what it comes down to is spending a lot of money
on Windows Server for each workstation, and the admins just
need to figure out what's really going wrong with their test
case, where the server CALs don't seem to be taking effect
consistently.

 

[Ace Fekay [MVP]]

In

No, I do understand that Win2K Pro is hardwired for 10
connections only, and does not support CALs.

It's darn annoying though; sometimes situations call for
the need to use workstations as a server for data under
certain special circumstances. Ours is a 'seti@home' kind
of scenario; distributed computing of large amounts of data
residing on hardware attached to each workstation.

The fact one can't add CALs to a workstation is really
bad.

It means these folks will have to upgrade all their
workstations to server, which they're investigating
by setting up two test scenarios. But the expense
is significant, and most feel unwarranted. That's a lot
of money to spend, just to work around the fact MS
decided to put a self-crippling hard wired line of code
in their SMB server; 'if ( connections > 10 ) Fail()'.


Yes, I believe there's one connection for every volume you access.
If using mapped drives, then one for each map, eg. if you have
X:, Y: and Z: mapped to different volumes on the same server.
(eyes roll)

And in the scenario in question, there will be more than one
connection from different users on each remote client, so that
will mean even more connections.

The scenario in question is a distributed processing system,
sort of like a "seti@home" distributed processing system,
where remote workstations may be used to process data from
a single workstation's drive.


The data is actually video images that are stored on each
workstation's real time video disk player. It's a large amount
of data that would take too long to move to a server for processing.
The workstations are all networked off a fast backbone.

I did recommend they put all the data on the server, but they
were not able to work that way; takes too long to centralize
all their data because it's so voluminous. It's an unusual situation
because of the hardware they're working with. It's a video
production company.

I think what it comes down to is spending a lot of money
on Windows Server for each workstation, and the admins just
need to figure out what's really going wrong with their test
case, where the server CALs don't seem to be taking effect
consistently.

I was involved with a distributed processing system about 4 years ago with a
specific site on the INternet, but cannot remember where at this time. Their
software handled the connection. My system (W2k Pro) at the time had at
least 30 connectoids at any given time. Their software controlled that. I
wound up removing it, got tired of the drain on the machine. FTP and web
services allows multiple connections as well on Pro using IIS or any other
3rd party tool. I was using ServU at one time on NT4 and W2k pro machines
allowing 20+ users. The software handled the connections.

From what I see, your connections are UNC based (mapped drives) to a share,
which is controlled by the subsystem allowing shares, which is limited by
the concurrent connections limit. So at this point, I'm not sure how to help
you in this.

--
Regards,
Ace

Please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroups
so all can benefit.

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees
and confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft Windows MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services

Security Is Like An Onion, It Has Layers
HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken;
A lifetime commitment for a pig.