Networking using Windows XP as a server

[Guest]

I am trying to set up a small office "server" system with a main box running
XP with shared drive as "server" drive. The office has 13 people, I know
there is a limit of 10 people simultaneously accessing. At the moment we are
a new company so do not have the resource to purchase the likes of Windows
Server software, is there anyway we can increase the maximum number of shares
in case we should all hit the drives at once, like maybe:
- share both drives (mirrored by Raid 1)? I would assume it is a limitation
of the "machine" not the "shared drive" though so probably not
- install a second XP license to run simultaneously?

Or is Windows 2000 server our only option?

I would appreciate any advice, as the extra set up costs could seriously
impair the companies performance

Cheers

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Windows XP is a workstation operating system and is limited
to 10 simultaneous connections. You cannot increase this.
I would suggest looking into Windows Server 2003 for your
business environment.

Introducing the Windows Server 2003 Family
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/family.mspx

Microsoft® Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/products/i...4271ea85-f9e5-4986-80ec-5f53ade3740d&type=ovr

Windows Server 2003 Evaluation Kit
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/evalkit.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| I am trying to set up a small office "server" system with a main box running
| XP with shared drive as "server" drive. The office has 13 people, I know
| there is a limit of 10 people simultaneously accessing. At the moment we are
| a new company so do not have the resource to purchase the likes of Windows
| Server software, is there anyway we can increase the maximum number of shares
| in case we should all hit the drives at once, like maybe:
| - share both drives (mirrored by Raid 1)? I would assume it is a limitation
| of the "machine" not the "shared drive" though so probably not
| - install a second XP license to run simultaneously?
|
| Or is Windows 2000 server our only option?
|
| I would appreciate any advice, as the extra set up costs could seriously
| impair the companies performance
|
| Cheers

 

[Bob Willard]

I am trying to set up a small office "server" system with a main box running
XP with shared drive as "server" drive. The office has 13 people, I know
there is a limit of 10 people simultaneously accessing. At the moment we are
a new company so do not have the resource to purchase the likes of Windows
Server software, is there anyway we can increase the maximum number of shares
in case we should all hit the drives at once, like maybe:
- share both drives (mirrored by Raid 1)? I would assume it is a limitation
of the "machine" not the "shared drive" though so probably not
- install a second XP license to run simultaneously?

Or is Windows 2000 server our only option?

I would appreciate any advice, as the extra set up costs could seriously
impair the companies performance

Cheers

You may be able to get some relief by splitting the served drive into two,
with each half on a different XP PRO PC.

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

You would then need another Windows XP license
which would be one-third the cost of a Server license.
Bad idea!

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

:
|
| You may be able to get some relief by splitting the served drive into two,
| with each half on a different XP PRO PC.
| --
| Cheers, Bob

 

[Leythos]

I am trying to set up a small office "server" system with a main box running
XP with shared drive as "server" drive. The office has 13 people, I know
there is a limit of 10 people simultaneously accessing. At the moment we are
a new company so do not have the resource to purchase the likes of Windows
Server software, is there anyway we can increase the maximum number of shares
in case we should all hit the drives at once, like maybe:
- share both drives (mirrored by Raid 1)? I would assume it is a limitation
of the "machine" not the "shared drive" though so probably not
- install a second XP license to run simultaneously?

Or is Windows 2000 server our only option?

I would appreciate any advice, as the extra set up costs could seriously
impair the companies performance

You can purchase the OEM version of 2000 or 2003 for about $600 with
5CAL's, you will need to purchase additional CAL's for the other users.

There is one other option, and I've looked at it for small offices, a
Linux File Server. Since you are running a workgroup it would not make
much difference, and you could probably hire a chap to install Linux for
less than half the cost of 2000 Server.

With 13 users you really want to be using a server.

 

[Guest]

We are in a similar situation. Since the network in question is isolated, we
have (at least for the time being) used a WIN98 PC to share the file. The
file activity is low and use is light so it's working fine for us.

We don't need a powerhouse machine or all the functionality of a full blown
server, so pending a favorable answer to a question I posted on the subject,
we're looking at a Linux option similar to that described above to see which
is the best balance of cost/benefit.

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Windows has a lower cost of ownership and outperforms Linux
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"EGEEZER" wrote:

| We are in a similar situation. Since the network in question is isolated, we
| have (at least for the time being) used a WIN98 PC to share the file. The
| file activity is low and use is light so it's working fine for us.
|
| We don't need a powerhouse machine or all the functionality of a full blown
| server, so pending a favorable answer to a question I posted on the subject,
| we're looking at a Linux option similar to that described above to see which
| is the best balance of cost/benefit.

 

[Bob Willard]

You would then need another Windows XP license
which would be one-third the cost of a Server license.
Bad idea!

You got the wrong idea, Carey; let me be more explicit --

You don't need another license to move some of the data from one
Windows PC to another existing Windows PC. Whether or not that
helps depends on how easy it is to split the data, and how easily
the access load splits. As an example, let's say that your two
most frequently accessed folders are AccountsReceivable and
AccountsPayable; then leaving AccountsReceivable on ServerPC
and moving AccountsPayable to BeanCounterPC may reduce the
frequency of exceeding the inbound limit to an acceptable level.

Alternatively, you could move all served folders to an OS that
does not have an inbound connection limit. Win2003Server is
one such OS, but there are others -- including Win9x, IIRC.