Windows Peer to Peer networking

[Guest]

I am in charge of a small network of computers in an office environment which
normally has between 5 and 10 computers operating. Over the next month this
has increased to 15 nodes.
The majority of the computers (i.e 12) run XP Pro. I understand XP Pro
allows up to 10 simultaneous conections to each instance running on a
machine. We have one machine which is set up to operate as both a file and
print server.
Connections top this machine may come from any of the networked computers,
but are sporadic and generally only require temporary access (i.e. each
machine hits the server for only a few minutes each day).
When most computers are turned on we get messages informing us that various
networked computers are unable to be accessed due to an overloaded network.
This generally applies reagrdless of whether you are trying to access the
'central' file and print server or any other computer on the network,
Sometimes you are unable to see the network tree when you drill down through
the My Network Places : Entire Network: Microsoft Windows Network: Workgroup
Name path through Windows Explorer., however a short time later network
locations become visible.

My question(s): What constitutes an active network connection? Are network
connections to any individual machine governed by a timeout after inactivity?
Do netwok shortcuts under My Network shortcuts qualify as active links which
interact with other referenced computers when Windows Explorer is open (and
if these are removed would this help in reducing network load/ congestion)?
And where can I get some information on the nitty gritty details of XP
networking to answer my questions?

I realise that if we are unable to solve Peer to Peer problems we may need
to look at Server options, but as I envisage the current (overloaded)
situation to be a temporary one I am happy to look at better management of
connections/ connection refresh rates as a short term workaround.

I await enlightenment!

Andrew

 

[R. McCarty]

This might be helpful:
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;en-us;314882

 

[Malke]

I am in charge of a small network of computers in an office
environment which
normally has between 5 and 10 computers operating. Over the next
month this has increased to 15 nodes.
The majority of the computers (i.e 12) run XP Pro. I understand XP
Pro allows up to 10 simultaneous conections to each instance running
on a
machine. We have one machine which is set up to operate as both a
file and print server.
Connections top this machine may come from any of the networked
computers, but are sporadic and generally only require temporary
access (i.e. each machine hits the server for only a few minutes each
day). When most computers are turned on we get messages informing us
that various networked computers are unable to be accessed due to an
overloaded network. This generally applies reagrdless of whether you
(snippage)

My question(s): What constitutes an active network connection?

You've written a really nice, wishful-thinking post. You are going to
need a server. Here is a link to information about the inbound
connection limit:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=314882

There really is no way of getting around this unless you are only using
the XP Pro "server" as a file server. If this is the case, just install
Linux on it instead. We do this for a lot of our clients and it has the
added benefit of not being affected by Windows viruses. That doesn't
mean the *data* collected from the Windows workstations might not be
infected, but the OS itself won't be harmed.

Malke

 

[Kerry Brown]

I am in charge of a small network of computers in an office
environment which normally has between 5 and 10 computers operating.
Over the next month this has increased to 15 nodes.
The majority of the computers (i.e 12) run XP Pro. I understand XP
Pro allows up to 10 simultaneous conections to each instance running
on a machine. We have one machine which is set up to operate as both
a file and print server.
Connections top this machine may come from any of the networked
computers, but are sporadic and generally only require temporary
access (i.e. each machine hits the server for only a few minutes each
day).
When most computers are turned on we get messages informing us that
various networked computers are unable to be accessed due to an
overloaded network. This generally applies reagrdless of whether you
are trying to access the 'central' file and print server or any other
computer on the network, Sometimes you are unable to see the network
tree when you drill down through the My Network Places : Entire
Network: Microsoft Windows Network: Workgroup Name path through
Windows Explorer., however a short time later network locations
become visible.

My question(s): What constitutes an active network connection? Are
network connections to any individual machine governed by a timeout
after inactivity? Do netwok shortcuts under My Network shortcuts
qualify as active links which interact with other referenced
computers when Windows Explorer is open (and if these are removed
would this help in reducing network load/ congestion)? And where can
I get some information on the nitty gritty details of XP networking
to answer my questions?

I realise that if we are unable to solve Peer to Peer problems we may
need to look at Server options, but as I envisage the current
(overloaded) situation to be a temporary one I am happy to look at
better management of connections/ connection refresh rates as a short
term workaround.

I await enlightenment!

Andrew

You will not be able to get around the connection limit for XP. A Linux
server will your meet your needs. If you have the funds Microsoft Small
Business Server is another good option. It is cheaper than Windows Server
and comes with Exchange as well. The wizards make it quite easy to set up
but I recommend you hire a professional to do the initial install of either
SBS or Linux.

http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/fedora/

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx

Kerry

 

[Ted]

If you buy a server, then you are going to pay sky high
money for every software you place in the server.
Plus server maintenance, price, troubleshooting, etc,
is going to cost time and money.

Since each computer need to connect few minutes a day,
I would try and have a programmer write you a very small program
that connects then disconnects from server.
Add another print computer that acts as a print server, make
one group use one printer, and have the other group use the
other print server.

 

[Kerry Brown]

If you buy a server, then you are going to pay sky high
money for every software you place in the server.
Plus server maintenance, price, troubleshooting, etc,
is going to cost time and money.

A Linux box could be set up for around $1,000.00. After the initial setup
the maintenance would be minimal. SBS 2003 with 15 CALs could be setup for
around $3,500.00. Again after initial setup, if done properly, maintenance
is minimal. Both prices include the cost of hiring someone to setup the
server properly. The scenario described is a very simple setup.

Software for a server can work out to be less expensive when you consider
all the factors. For instance Trend Micro SMB Client Server Security for 25
clients is $735.00 A 25 user license for their PC-cillan Internet Security
Pack is $750.00. The server based version has a much smaller footprint on
the clients and it is much easier to administer via the network. This
scenario is true of many applications when you factor in the cost of
individual licenses vs. a network license.

Since each computer need to connect few minutes a day,
I would try and have a programmer write you a very small program
that connects then disconnects from server.
Add another print computer that acts as a print server, make
one group use one printer, and have the other group use the
other print server.

Custom programs like this can be a nightmare. It could also work out well.
It depends on the programmer and if they will be around to modify it when
needed. With more than 8 or 9 computers whatever you do with p2p and XP will
be a fight. It was not designed for this. You would be better off using a
Windows 98 machine as the server

Kerry

 

[Malke]

If you buy a server, then you are going to pay sky high
money for every software you place in the server.
Plus server maintenance, price, troubleshooting, etc,
is going to cost time and money.

Since each computer need to connect few minutes a day,
I would try and have a programmer write you a very small program
that connects then disconnects from server.
Add another print computer that acts as a print server, make
one group use one printer, and have the other group use the
other print server.

That is simply not true. Buying two computers instead of one isn't the
solution. First of all, if the OP is just using the server for file
storage there aren't going to be any installed "software you place in
the server". The server shouldn't be used for anything else. If the
server is being used to host a program, that program has been purchased
anyway.

The solution for the OP is to do what I and others suggested; i.e.,
either get a server operating system from Microsoft (not outrageously
expensive for Small Business Server either) or put Linux on the machine
instead.

Malke

 

[Ted]

That is simply not true. Buying two computers instead of one isn't the

solution.

Adding a computer and a basic printer wouldn't cost more than $1000.
Plus you also have a backup printer.

The solution for the OP is to do what I and others suggested; i.e.,
either get a server operating system from Microsoft (not outrageously
expensive for Small Business Server either) or put Linux on the machine
instead.

Easily said, but that cost lots of money, training, pay
a network engineer $240 an hour for if network went down.
Plus the down time would be much longer waiting for the engineer.
There is no need for the waste.
Using Linux or MS servers, requires administrator to start
from scratch.

Custom programs like this can be a nightmare.

The program shouldn't cost more than $200 or $300.
It is simple two lines of code, actually could be ran
using a batch file.

 

[Ted]

Even if he buys 15 printers HP 1200 LaserJet for example,
it wouldn't cost him more than $3000, much cheaper than
running a server.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Even if he buys 15 printers HP 1200 LaserJet for example,
it wouldn't cost him more than $3000, much cheaper than
running a server.

That wouldn't solve the problem with file sharing being limited by the
number of connections. A server, especially SBS has many other advantages
for a business. I appreciate that you are opposed to servers but XP is
really not suitable as a "server" when the network grows beyond 8 or 9 pc's.
I have done many cost analysis for business'. The cost of running a server
is easily made up by centralised backups, less administration and many other
things. A properly set up server needs very little maintenance. Once an
administrator is over the learning curve it actually takes much less time to
administer a client/server network than a p2p network. All administration
can be done from one computer rather than repeated trips to each computer.
Granted the initial cost may be more if you include training but it won't
take long for it to pay for itself.

Kerry

 

[Ted]

"but are sporadic and generally only require temporary access (i.e. each

machine hits the server for only a few minutes each day)."

For their type of use, it is a waste of time and money.
We are not talking about constant all day networking.

 

[Kerry Brown]

For their type of use, it is a waste of time and money.
We are not talking about constant all day networking.

We obviously don't agree. The OP will have to make up his own mind.

I have been called in to fix networks that have been cobbled together to
save money. In the long term it cost them more money than if they had done
it right the first time. XP will cause problems once more than 8 or 9
computers are sharing files or printers. It doesn't matter how little the
shares are accessed, sooner or later someone will be denied access. It is
almost impossible to stop XP from trying to discover what exists on a
network. It will auto discover shares, printers, whatever it can find. If
users see it on their computer they will use it. It is a design flaw in my
mind but it must be taken into consideration when setting up a network.
Trying to work around it will take more time and effort than the cost of a
small Linux server. We can argue this all day but I don't see us agreeing.
You can have the last word if you want. I've had my say

Kerry

 

[Ted]

It is a design flaw in my mind but it must be taken into consideration

when setting up a network.

I agree with you. But maybe W2K is better alternative.