is there a way to circumvent the maximum 10 shares (concurrent connections) per winxp machine?

[MrChad]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882

It's interesting that Samba works this way, since according to Microsoft, multiple shares from the same computer should be treated as one connection.

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.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: MrChad
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882

It's interesting that Samba works this way, since according to Microsoft, multiple shares from the same computer should be treated as one connection.

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.

strange, as I have seen this problem opening multiple shares on <5 computers.

As a solution, if you have 6 drives....

Share the root of the drive, mount it on your linux box, then use samba to share those to the other computers (without the 10 connection limit).

Complaining about an intentional limitation is pointless. It's always been there, and it's there to prevent companies from using XP Pro, a client OS, as a SERVER. Don't complain when your client OS does not function as a server.

btw, the double sharing (mount drives on linux, share through samba) is a little slow, but you could do a crossover cable with gige cards, then it's usually ok.

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: MrChad
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882

It's interesting that Samba works this way, since according to Microsoft, multiple shares from the same computer should be treated as one connection.

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.

strange, as I have seen this problem opening multiple shares on <5 computers.

As a solution, if you have 6 drives....

Share the root of the drive, mount it on your linux box, then use samba to share those to the other computers (without the 10 connection limit).

Complaining about an intentional limitation is pointless. It's always been there, and it's there to prevent companies from using XP Pro, a client OS, as a SERVER. Don't complain when your client OS does not function as a server.

btw, the double sharing (mount drives on linux, share through samba) is a little slow, but you could do a crossover cable with gige cards, then it's usually ok.

i'm not complaining. i'm simply asking if there's a way to do so.

like i said, i don't really use my machine for "server" purposes except for this. and i'd be more than willing to pay for this functionality without having to change my OS.

the solution you've provided is helpful -- but i mount stuff everywhere in linux, not all in the same place. therefore, i can't really do any centralized mounting.

e.g. i have e:\photos mounted to /var/www/html/photos... then i have h:\backup mounted to /tmp/backup, etc.. -- i can't figure out how to minimize this at all.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: tami
the solution you've provided is helpful -- but i mount stuff everywhere in linux, not all in the same place. therefore, i can't really do any centralized mounting.

e.g. i have e:\photos mounted to /var/www/html/photos... then i have h:\backup mounted to /tmp/backup, etc.. -- i can't figure out how to minimize this at all.

If each of your mountpoints is on a different drive on the Windows machine, you may be SOL. But if you are mounting, say, three or four different folders from the E drive, you could do the following:

Share e:\ on the Windows box
Mount e:\ to /var/edrive/
Mount /var/edrive/photos to /var/www/html/photos
Mount /var/edrive/pr0n to /var/www/html/pr0n
etc. etc.

And it would only count as a single share from Windows' perspective.

If this doesn't condense it enough, then I would question your assertion that this system is not a "server".

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: tami
the solution you've provided is helpful -- but i mount stuff everywhere in linux, not all in the same place. therefore, i can't really do any centralized mounting.

e.g. i have e:\photos mounted to /var/www/html/photos... then i have h:\backup mounted to /tmp/backup, etc.. -- i can't figure out how to minimize this at all.

If each of your mountpoints is on a different drive on the Windows machine, you may be SOL. But if you are mounting, say, three or four different folders from the E drive, you could do the following:

Share e:\ on the Windows box
Mount e:\ to /var/edrive/
Mount /var/edrive/photos to /var/www/html/photos
Mount /var/edrive/pr0n to /var/www/html/pr0n
etc. etc.

And it would only count as a single share from Windows' perspective.

If this doesn't condense it enough, then I would question your assertion that this system is not a "server".

Symlinks are your friend, and that is what Matthias99 is getting at, mount it a single time in one location, then symlink it out to where you need it.

Again, the other option is to put these drives in the linux box, and share them to windows to write to them. Then you would be USING a server OS to do the fileserver stuff.

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: MrChad
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882

It's interesting that Samba works this way, since according to Microsoft, multiple shares from the same computer should be treated as one connection.

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.

right, and according to this:

For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is ten. This limit includes all transports and resource sharing protocols combined.

i wonder if i can consolidate it given that my fstab looks like this:


//machinename/photos /var/www/html/photos smbfs username=test,password=testme,dmask=777 0 0
//machinename/backup /tmp/backup smbfs username=test,password=testme,dmask=777 0 0
//machinename/videos /var/www/html/videos smbfs username=test,password=testme,dmask=777 0 0
//machinename/sqlbackups /sqlbackups smbfs username=test,password=testme,dmask=777 0 0

if i can get those all to count as one connection, i'd be set...

but it doesn't seem possible. or is it?

 

[tami]

that's a good point, nweaver... i guess i could do that.

i'm skeptical about sharing my entire 6 drives because of security, but maybe i'll do it.. i don't know if that's the optimal solution though.

is there any other forseeable solution?

 

[nweaver]

are you sure you arn't already? try to connect to \\computer\c$ share, often times (on pro) it already is a hidden share

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: nweaver
are you sure you arn't already? try to connect to \\computer\c$ share, often times (on pro) it already is a hidden share

that works, yes, but i am really antsy about going along that path because of security issues. i'd rather not if i can avoid it.

 

[tami]

10522: session setup failed: ERRDOS - 71
SMB connection failed

that's what happens when you go beyond 10 samba shares. the suggestion you proposed, nweaver, works, but again, i'm trying to only give access to specific folders that i want shared (instead of the entire drive) in order to avoid any security issues.

 

[superjohnyo]

comp1 = XP Pro SP2
comp2 = Win2000 SP4

sharing 12 folders on comp1, mounting all of them on comp2 = success
sharing 12 folders on comp2, mounting all of them on comp1 = success

both while using vnc to connect to the other at the time, so up to 13 connections. maybe Windows is giving Linux the shaft?

 

[tami]

the thing is, john, i think that you can do so from windows to windows -- so in a sense, windows is giving linux the shaft. i've never had a problem with the number of shares within windows AS LONG AS THE CREDENTIALS ARE IDENTICAL from computer to computer (is that the case for you? same username/password combo?). i do have the problem when it isn't (e.g. once those linux shares are mounted, my husband can't connect to my photos share)

i haven't really explored it that much to know that whether, when the credentials are identical from system1 to system2, if it treats concurrent sessions to multiple shares as a single connection or each connection as a distinct separate connection. i actually think it's the latter, though i'm constantly accessing the drives using those identical credentials so i've never run into the problem.

 

[superjohnyo]

Wouldn't the first link I posted fix that? It's supposed to let you change the number of outbound connections (ie: standard xp pro outbound connection limit(10); with the patch, up to 65000).

 

[superjohnyo]

"Access the event viewer by Start / Control Panel / Administrative Tools / Event Viewer / System. Sort by Event and scroll down to 4226."

After you try to access the 11th share, does another one of these messages get added to the list?

 

[Zugzwang152]

In my opinion, circumventing licensing restrictions shouldn't be allowable discussion here.

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
In my opinion, circumventing licensing restrictions shouldn't be allowable discussion here.

if you read the thread in its entirety, i'm not trying to circumvent license restrictions. i'm trying to look for an allowable option in lieu of this license limitation.

i'm not going to edit all my posts to reflect that desire. it's a learning experience to me to see the discussion as it progressed, and changing it will help nobody, especially if someone uses this thread as a reference in the future and wants to do so within their legal rights.

as for me, i don't want to violate any license restrcitions either, and as i said multiple times, i'd gladly pay for this functionality alone. but given that that is not an option, the discussion has shifted gears a bit to see if there's any way to have samba recognize these distinct connections as one single connection (or something along those lines).

 

[tami]

john: i'm silly. i thought i clicked on that link but it turns out that i didn't

but i don't see eventID 4226 in my event logs at all. i'm not sure if that's the exact same problem. in fact, i don't see anything in the event log that pertains to the number of connections that are currently in use. the only way i see what is in use is by going into computer management (compmgmt.msc) > shared folders > shared. i currently have 9 client connections.

 

[superjohnyo]

If you read this page:

http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/1999-09/msg00046.html

It looks like this guy used cygwin on his NT box to run samba on that computer... or... I don't know, I know very little about linux. But it looks like he was able to get more than ten connections, without violating anything. But I still know nothing.

 

[Nothinman]

I haven't read all of the posts, but if you use another server besides the MS SMB or IIS servers you won't have that 10 connection limit. So if you install OpenSSH you could use shfs to mount the share via SSH on the Linux machine. There's also FTP, HTTP and some other protocol's supported by LUFS.

 

[tami]

interesting thoughts. i have no experience with the aforementioned filesystems but if told how to properly mount them in fstab, i guess i can go on my merry way and see how it works.

cygwin is also an interesting, but daunting, task.

hmm, the options.

 

[sourceninja]

Personally, I would put the drives in the linux box and share them to the windows box.

 

[tami]

the linux box is presently incapable of housing more hard drives. the case just does not accommodate other drives. that's primarily why i am trying to do it this way.

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
In my opinion, circumventing licensing restrictions shouldn't be allowable discussion here.

I certainly think is should.

I support copyrights, patents, and trademarks because they are true areas of law. EULA's, on the other hand, can all go to hell. They are themselves an abusive attempt to circumvent consumer protection laws and infringe on the rights of the buyer -- staking out phony flags of conquest on land that already has owners.

She paid for her OS. She paid for her computer. If she can tweak a byte in the registry to make it obey, more power to her.

---

You are wrong. The EULA with Windows is an enforceable contract. There is nothing hidden, illegal or abusive about it. You know the terms when you buy the OS, and by installing it, you agree to the terms of the EULA.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[nweaver]

she didn't pay for her OS, she paid for a license to use THEIR OS...there is a difference. Not a direct comparison, but it's almost more like renting a car then buying a car...

although I think this has not spun down into a "install this haxxored dll and system file and change these bytes" so much as "Try this, or this, or this to reduce the number of connections you are using"

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: nweaver
she didn't pay for her OS, she paid for a license to use THEIR OS...there is a difference. Not a direct comparison, but it's almost more like renting a car then buying a car...

She paid for a copy of it in the same sense that she might buy a copy of a book, cd, or DVD. She owns the media and, under the doctrine of first sale (within the US) enjoys certain rights.

The first-sale doctrine and computer software

The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA). The courts have issued contrary decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two US Supreme court cases that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the scope of copyright and patent, but calling it a license. Many state courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods under the UCC at the point where funds are exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed and not sold argument is held mostly in the 8'th and 7'th circuits while other circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court opinions such as seen in the third circuit Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as opposed to the eighth circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have not been resolved by higher courts.

District courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains a EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (A box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The California District Court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruling argued that California consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.

In a more recent case involving software EULA's and first-sale rights [Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)][3], the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a ruling which appears to contradict the position of the Californian and Texan courts. The first sale reasoning of the California District Court in Softman v. Adobe was challenged, with the court ruling '"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement.' In addition, the Court found the plaintiffs EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because 'The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and TOU by clicking "I Agree" and "Agree."' This runs counter to Softman v. Adobe. The difference in these rulings has yet to be resolved by a superior court.

IMHO, making the claim that software is licensed rather than owned is just adding confusion. Until the electronics section of Wal*Mart has you sit down with lawyers and sign a contract prior to shelling out your cash, the stuff you buy there is owned.