Sessions are doubled ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweeneym
  • Start date Start date
S

sweeneym

We've got a Windows XP PRO machine running several shared folders. We
know there is a limit of 10 connections, but we cannot get 10
connections, only 5 people can connect since each session appears to be
doubled for each user

1 user 2 sessions
2 users 4 sessions
3 users 6 sessions
4 users 8 sessions
5 users 10 sessions maximum reached


Any reason why each session is being doubled like this ?

It's either windows 2000 or Windows XP machines connecting to the XP
PRO folders. There are 8 people that need to connect, and in theory,
should be able to.
 
We've got a Windows XP PRO machine running several shared folders. We
know there is a limit of 10 connections, but we cannot get 10
connections, only 5 people can connect since each session appears to
be doubled for each user

1 user 2 sessions
2 users 4 sessions
3 users 6 sessions
4 users 8 sessions
5 users 10 sessions maximum reached


Any reason why each session is being doubled like this ?

It's either windows 2000 or Windows XP machines connecting to the XP
PRO folders. There are 8 people that need to connect, and in theory,
should be able to.
Click to expand...

No, in theory you should not be able to because you are misunderstanding
the nature of the incoming connections limit. The limit is on
*connections* not *computers*. Each computer can make more than one
connection and in your case, obviously does.

You need to either replace the XP Pro on your pseudo-server with a real
Microsoft server operating system or - if the box is only acting as a
file server and not running Windows programs - you could replace XP Pro
with Linux which has no incoming connections limitation.

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=314882 - Inbound connections limit in
XP

concurrent connections:

10 for XP Pro/Tablet/MCE
5 for XP Home
49 for SBS 2000
74 for SBS 2003
Unlimited for full Server O/Ses

Malke
 
No, in theory you should not be able to because you are
misunderstanding the nature of the incoming connections limit.
The limit is on *connections* not *computers*. Each computer can
make more than one connection and in your case, obviously does.

You need to either replace the XP Pro on your pseudo-server with
a real Microsoft server operating system or - if the box is only
acting as a file server and not running Windows programs - you
could replace XP Pro with Linux which has no incoming
connections limitation.

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=314882 - Inbound connections
limit in XP
Click to expand...

Expanding on your response.

Quotes from the cited KB article:

Quote 1: "For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other
computers that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the
network is ten."
....

Quote 2: "All logical drive, logical printer, and transport level
connections combined from a single computer are considered to be
one session; therefore, these connections only count as one
connection in the ten- connection limit. For example, if a user
establishes two logical drive connections, two Windows sockets, and
one logical printer connection to a Windows XP system, one session
is established. As a result, there will be only one less connection
that can be made to the Windows XP system, even though three
logical connections have been established."

So for file & print sharing, 1 computer = 1 session. But...

Quote 3: "The only way system A will have multiple sessions to
another system, system Z, is if system A is running services that
create logical connections to system Z. For example, if a user is
logged on to system A as guest and a service is running on system A
under the user1 account, and both the user and the service (as
user1) establish connections to system Z, two sessions are
established. Each logon session that uses the Server service counts
against the connection limit. "

Summary: 10 PCs can each share any number of resources on a single
XP Pro server, but it looks like the OP also has something running
on the client PCs that fits Quote 3.

Quote 3 is somewhat less than transparent to me - perhaps someone
could give a practical example?
 
Back
Top