No. of connections possible in peer to peer

cygan

Member
Sep 30, 2004
70
0
0
We have a group of abount 100 machines running a mix of Win98, WinXP Home, XP Pro and 2 machines with Win2K server. There is no domain configured, and these run practically on a peer to peer approach. I was just wondering, if there is a limitation to the no. of machines that can be networked this way, since people who switch their pcs later on during the day, get messages saying that the machine is already connected to the maximum no. of connections, and no more connections are possible at that time. The network is only available some time after a few people turn off their machines.

I can put some pcs on another workgroup, but most of them require access to other machines. Or is creation of a domain the solution to this problem?

Is there any workaround solution to this problem?
 

JackMDS

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 25, 1999
29,516
408
126
Win XP Home can maintain 5 concurrent connections.

Win XP Pro can maintain 10 concurrent connections.

In server topology you it depends on much WorkStations Lic. you buy.

:sun:
 

Slowlearner

Senior member
Mar 20, 2000
873
0
0
Data that needs to shared by many should be on the pcs running server OSs. Apart from the unstructured network, the problem you are running into could result from lots of users unnecessarily mapping to the pcs that they frequently need to get data from. If they need to access another pc a couple of times a day, it could be kept as a short cut in their My network places, instead mapping to that drive.
 

cygan

Member
Sep 30, 2004
70
0
0
Yep, I think that could be the problem. I shall ask users to disconnect the mapped drives and then try the same.
Thanx
 

cygan

Member
Sep 30, 2004
70
0
0
Thanx for your replies. I have a query.
Would creating a domain or putting up a file server solve the problem, or will I eventually end back at square one?

 

JackMDS

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 25, 1999
29,516
408
126
If there are real concurrent connections between the XP computers nothing would solve the problem.

If the part of the connections is establishing by Mapped drives etc. then as posted above you can reduce the number of Quasi connections.

Putting every thing to be shared on a server would solve the problem, providing that the server is a real server OS. I.e. Win2000 server or Windows 2003. And you have the correct amount of Lic.

:sun:
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Would creating a domain or putting up a file server solve the problem, or will I eventually end back at square one?

Setting up a domain isn't really necessary, but will make things easier for you in the longterm. If you have to use Windows for the fileserver then you need to buy a Server version of the OS in order to support more than 10 concurrent connections. And make sure you check your licensing out, MS licensing is extremely complicated.
 

ktwebb

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 1999
2,488
1
0
I would disagree. Sounds like you have bigger problems than just needing a DC or two but with 100 workstations, if they're all windows, having a windows Domain Controller and Active Directory present would be mandatory if I were consulting, especially with two Windows 2K servers already in place. The disclamier for me would be, if the bulk of your boxes were win98 and/or XP Home the benefit greatly reduces. IMO, if you have 15 to 20 XP Pro machines at minimum, then laying out a domain model and running dcpromo on at least one of the servers would be something I would definitely be doing. If the majority of the boxes are XP pro or 2000 pro then not running AD with GPO's, DNS and so on, would unacceptable.

Having said all that, I would also recommend you engage someone capable of doing the migration.
 

xtknight

Elite Member
Oct 15, 2004
12,974
0
71
You could always just use Linux on one of the machines and start a Samba server instead of buying Windows Server. Unless I'm missing something?
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
We don't know what the 2 Win2K servers that he already has are doing, he might not be able to convert them to DCs or use those licenses on another machine to setup a DC. A Samba server would be a drop in server for his current situation that would be able to allow as many connections as the hardware can handle and not require that be spend a ton of money on a Windows Server license.

However, no matter what choice is made the users will have to get used to keeping their files on the server instead of sharing them from their workstations.
 

ktwebb

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 1999
2,488
1
0
100 users so he could run dcpromo on either 2K server and it not be a huge hit performance wise. I'll agree that a little more information would be helpful but I'll also stand by my statement about hiring someone competent to do the work anyway. Askign the kinds of questions asked in the couple of posts by the OP make it pretty clear trying to run an AD windows domain is likely outside the scope of abilities.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Askign the kinds of questions asked in the couple of posts by the OP make it pretty clear trying to run an AD windows domain is likely outside the scope of abilities.

Exactly, which is why just 'running dcpromo and hoping' is not a good recommendation at all. As much as MS touts ease of use and management and lower TCO and crap, AD is a complicated beast and setting it up improperly can be much worse than not having it at all. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that all of his machines are using his ISP's DNS servers and I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy to see one of his servers trying to modify their zone files.
 

ktwebb

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 1999
2,488
1
0
Which I'll guess I'll say now for the third time. He needs someone in there taking care of this. Regardless of whether they go Windows AD, Linux Samba, or anything else for that matter, including a 100 workstation peer to peer. And since that's the answer anyway, i'd go with AD since their servers are in place.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Ideally, yes he should, but it's not necessary to fix the problem he's complaining about. They already have 2 servers, it wouldn't take much work to add some disks and centralize their data storage. They've been getting by with a broken setup for a while now, centralizing the data without any infrastructure changes wouldn't be any worse and would get rid of their connection limit problems.
 

Brazen

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2000
4,259
0
0
Nothinman is absolutely right.

There is a setting on the Windows 2000 server for how many connections are allowed. This must be set during installation, depending on how many concurrent connections have been licensed and paid for. You can increase this setting, but that would be illegal without purchasing additional licenses (yes, M$ hits your budget double time with server licensing). Installing a domain controller with Active Directory will NOT change the OP's connection problem.

Installing a SAMBA file server sounds like the best idea. You'll only need to purchase (or allocate) hardware. You absolutely DON'T need to hire a consultant for this. The advantage of Samba over a windows file server is no licensing restrictions and plenty of free help out on the web. Just post in a linux forum and you'll find plenty of help walking you through configuring Samba. I would suggest fedoraforum.org.

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Exactly, which is why just 'running dcpromo and hoping' is not a good recommendation at all. As much as MS touts ease of use and management and lower TCO and crap, AD is a complicated beast and setting it up improperly can be much worse than not having it at all. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that all of his machines are using his ISP's DNS servers and I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy to see one of his servers trying to modify their zone files.
I took over managing a VERY poorly setup AD network, and yes, this is very true. (Things are getting better now that I'm there, though :))
 

ktwebb

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 1999
2,488
1
0
It's call per seat licensing and as long as his worksation OS's are installed legally he can change the licensing to per seat if that is what needs to happen. The debate wasn't about this at all actually. It's about cleaning up what sounds like a mess. Bandaiding existing 2k NTFS or share permissions is one approach. *nix file server is another though somehow I doubt this would be a good option for the OP. Hey different strokes. For me, I would think fixing the problem with someone capable of doing so is the best solution but if you take the approach, the guy came in here looking for a fix, not advice on management/consultation opinions, then so be it. Doesn't sway the way I would answer the original, or subsequent posts. It's 100 workstations and if you are coming in a forum asking the kinds of questions being asked, then it does a disservice to those 100 users to not suggest to him to hire somone that is capable of solving his problem(s). But I'll bow out and let you guys "help" him, however I think he's probably gone at this point.
 

Brazen

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2000
4,259
0
0
You can't legally switch to per seat licensing unless you purchased per seat licenses, which this company apparently did not. And I doubt they want to purchase all new licenses.

And who is going to stick around and manage this network that the OP will understand nothing about? He's willing to learn, he's wanting to learn, so I'll help him where I can. Just telling him he can't do it is a disservice to him and the 100 users he has to take care of. Everyone has to start somewhere.
 

ktwebb

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 1999
2,488
1
0
Doesnt' really read that way to me. Sounded to me like he has shares on workstation machines and the limitation is such. Could be wrong there and so be it. Could not disagree more with your other comments. Turning a guy loose on 100 workstation to f'in learn, that is responsible for the maintenance/upkeep/etc.. is reckless and generally just ****** advice. To each his own. Guess it comes down to how you do business. Saying hey man, have at it, when there are 100 workstations and one could reasonably assume, 100 users on those machines, isn't how I would. I tend to care more about the person on the other end of the ethernet run than my personal development. That's just me though. .
 

Brazen

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2000
4,259
0
0
Well, if you read my posts, my suggest was to set up a new Samba file server. Setting this up would not have any affect on the rest of the network. If he sets it up and it's not working, no big deal, it won't go into production yet and he just starts over. The server does not go into production until it is set up and working. That should be the case whether you are just learning or a seasoned veteran.

Your reasoning just sucks, and if that is the way you work, it just reminds me why I loathe consultants.

TBH, with as little and vague information as was given, his problem could be something else, but running short of licenses is what is sounds like to me. I'm betting the Windows 2000 machines are used as file servers (one or both), but just in a workgroup setting. It could possible be that files are shared on the XP workstations, but then the same problems apply, and my recommendation would still be the same.

PLUS, 100 users is pretty small. I know very few shops that small that have the funds to purchase Microsoft servers and connection lincenses. In fact, I don't know any, but I'm sure there are a few. All the shops I know of that are that small run linux servers, which is quite easy to admin on such a small network. And if this guy dove into linux and was able to improve their network services with zero budget, he'd be a hero ;).
 

RebateMonger

Elite Member
Dec 24, 2005
11,586
0
0
Originally posted by: Brazen
Your reasoning just sucks, and if that is the way you work, it just reminds me why I loathe consultants.
With 100 client PCs, they either need a full-time, professional, IT employee, or they need a part-time consultant. If they'd had either, they wouldn't be in their current situation.
 

cygan

Member
Sep 30, 2004
70
0
0
I was thinking of a centralized file server, but that something that will take some time. I'll most probably use Samba, because my colleagues have greatly recommended the same, and in fact 3 sysadmins whom i spoke too, told me that it performs better than windows server. But thats another issue.

The primary issue that I wanted you all to help me was with some people not getting access to the network when most of the users had logged on. As advised early in this post, I removed the mappings and I think so it has been successful to a great extent.

Can I conclude that a domain will in no way benefit me, since the server which has a predetermined no. of licences will in no way enhance the connectivity problems that I presently face?

Also if I create two groups on two separate subnets, is there any way that I can link those two groups given that they share the same switches
 

Brazen

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2000
4,259
0
0
Originally posted by: cygan
Can I conclude that a domain will in no way benefit me, since the server which has a predetermined no. of licences will in no way enhance the connectivity problems that I presently face?
That is my guess, but it's hard to tell without seeing when exactly they get that error, the exact words of the error, and most importantly - what are they able to access even when they get the error, such as can they browse the internet, can they ping the servers, can they ping other workstations or the gateway, etc...


Also if I create two groups on two separate subnets, is there any way that I can link those two groups given that they share the same switches

You would need a router. If they are on the same physical network, you could use your gateway (assuming you have admin access to it) to set up a route on the same physical network, but that's a little complicated. I don't see why you would want to do this though.
 

Brazen

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2000
4,259
0
0
Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Originally posted by: Brazen
Your reasoning just sucks, and if that is the way you work, it just reminds me why I loathe consultants.
With 100 client PCs, they either need a full-time, professional, IT employee, or they need a part-time consultant. If they'd had either, they wouldn't be in their current situation.

Now, let's be curteous, cygan apparently is that "full-time, professional, IT employee" and there is nothing wrong with having to ask for help sometimes.

As far as consultants go, we have an organization that leases office space in one of our buildings that uses a part-time consultant. For them it seems like a good choice, since they only have like 15 computers and could not keep a full time IT person even remotely busy. This guy seems to do more harm than good though. Despite his lack of IT skills, he tried setting them up with a Cisco enterprise class router to segment some of their workstations. CISCO!! FOR 15 COMPUTERS?!?! Lucky for them, I got wind of it and gave them an old linksys router that did just what they wanted (and configured it myself of course, it's good PR).

In my experience with consultants, they cost the company more and provide poorer service than a descent full-time IT person. Of course, not all full-time IT persons are descent (one of our workstation techs proves that).
 

nweaver

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2001
6,813
1
0
Originally posted by: cygan
We have a group of abount 100 machines running a mix of Win98, WinXP Home, XP Pro and 2 machines with Win2K server. There is no domain configured, and these run practically on a peer to peer approach. I was just wondering, if there is a limitation to the no. of machines that can be networked this way, since people who switch their pcs later on during the day, get messages saying that the machine is already connected to the maximum no. of connections, and no more connections are possible at that time. The network is only available some time after a few people turn off their machines.

I can put some pcs on another workgroup, but most of them require access to other machines. Or is creation of a domain the solution to this problem?

Is there any workaround solution to this problem?

Ignoring ths small flamefest :)

This message is caused because either a) You are out of client access licenses on your windows file server, or b) you are using XP Pro/2kPro to host files for users. We need to know if this message is in regards to mapping/using network shares from a server (and what OS that server is) or from a client.

Assuming you do not have a centralized file server throwing these errors, you have 2 easy solutions.

1) Purchase windows/hardware to run as a file server. This has the added benifit of being able to provide centralized administration (usernames/passwords, etc) for windows XP and 2kPro machines (no 98, ME, or XP Home) which may help with other things. This would be fairly expensive (2k3 server + cals)

2) Purchase hardware to run a Linux/Unix server on, with the Samba file server. This option is going to be less expensive in up front costs (You can use a much lower end server, and no licensing fees) but may be harder to manage if you have no *nix experience. Understand, that if you don't have windows server experience, it is also going to cost for #1