Sharing user limit >10

Discussion in 'Windows Desktop Systems' started by jkamb, Oct 2, 2002.

  1. jkamb

    jkamb Guest

    Hi, has anyone got an idea how to inrease the user limit that has access to a shared folder at any one time under XP Pro???
    Thanx
     
  2. Rascal

    Rascal Guest

    hmmmm, good question, I assume 'maximum allowed' is infact also 10 users. So it seems you can either have a maximum 10 users or specify any specific number lower than that.
     
  3. jkamb

    jkamb Guest

    Thanx for your answer, I'm actually after a user limit = 20 or so. I've read in forums and Microsoft that maximum is 10 but I thought maybe there was a way to increase this (registry or something).
     
  4. Rascal

    Rascal Guest

    if you find anything, please post it here, I'd be interested in knowing if/how this is done. There must be a way to change it.
     
  5. Rascal

    Rascal Guest

    Actually....thinking about it....this is the reason.

    Since NT Workstation the maximum users able to connect is 10. If you want to allow more than that you have to buy server version. Thats the reason. So it might be hackable in the registry, but its like that because they want you to buy server version.
     
  6. Rootz

    Rootz Guest

    ...and that's what actually they want you to do... but this is not just to squeeze you more money. It's just that you need a server!

    I never tested how many concurrent connection you can have on a 2000/XP Pro machine but I clearly remember that there is a limit you can't exceed for a simple reason...
    Too many users connected to a workstation would decrease performance of the computer itself, firstly because connections suck memory to the system, secondly because workstations are optimized for application performance, not background services as a server is. You can always set a workstation to focus more on background services (which would let your computer host maximum connections without crashing every five minutes) but that would decrease application performance anyways because more memory is reserved for connections (and les for application).
    The result as you can see is you need a server whose primary task is hosting and mantaining up to 250 simultaneous connections (on paper, in fact this is not true) and not running apps in a client way of speaking.

    So nothing to do with licensing or pricing... they go down hard with client-to-server connections instead, believe me... a single retail 2000 server lets you connect a maximum of 5 client machines simultaneously. Each further connection you'd like to host (up to 250 per server machine as I said) need to have more server or client licenses registered on the server. Take out your calculator guys...
    :eek:
     
  7. Rootz

    Rootz Guest

    uh and you can hack whatever you like, you may manage rising the maximum value for connections but the computer will decrease its performance proportionally until BSOD.
     
  8. Rascal

    Rascal Guest

    Rootz...I totally agree, however, I would just like to add that there is very little difference between workstation and server versions of M$ software. In fact (for example) its widely known that by changing the correct reg keys in 2k pro u can infact 'switch' to 2k server and vice versa.

    In jkamb's case, i.e. wanting to connect 20 users instead of 10, the performance impact shouldn't be too bad anyway. So I guess the question is.....what key do you change to increase the allowed connections?
     
  9. Rootz

    Rootz Guest

    let's see...
    anybody WIDELY out there can tell me how to switch from a 2000 Professional to a 2000 Server through registry hacking??
    I long to install clustering services on a Windows2000 Professional:rolleyes:
     
  10. Rascal

    Rascal Guest

    OK, so perhaps WIDELY was an overstatement, but it IS possible....I'm just digging out some info on it now....
     
  11. Rascal

    Rascal Guest

  12. Rootz

    Rootz Guest

    That was the reason of my sarcasm Rascal...
    The core components of the system are actually the same. But saying you can have a Pro 'behave' (which would need further explanation on the term) like a Server is bull***t. What's the use of a 'server' if I can't use it as a server?
    I'm talking about genuine server services such as DNS, DHCP, the above clustering... but actually it deals also with jkamb 'problem'...
    I mean are you sure that this is just a question of a ten-instead-of-twenty in the registry?
    Maybe yes maybe not. I don't have any clue about this hack but a some nerd might have work that out. I'm curious really, also about how the machine works after such a modification.
    So let's get back to work and find out this tweak!
    :)

    By the way, does anybody knows how to hack XP Home Edition registry to make it support 32 processors? It's the same system core of Windows .NET after all...
    :p

    Ok I quit, I'm sorry... I feel funky today! :cool:
     
  13. Rascal

    Rascal Guest

    I think you're missing the point, but nm.
     
  14. dsmith1180

    dsmith1180 Guest

    Simply put Microsoft would not have put a 10 concurrent limit on Pro if performance was the only issue. Obviously, the coded in limit was to prevent those that only want to do file sharing from turning to Pro for the solution. The base kernal is the same for pro and server therefore a basic service such as file sharing is not really enhanced in any way on the server end for "simple" file sharing. Missing the point on the earlier post obviously again if you were looking for DNS/DHCP/enhanced file sharing then *duh* you need server. A lot of times the only solution I've needed is file sharing > 10 and if it wasn't for that hard-coded limit I think a lot of companies could have saved shloads of money and M$ would suffer bad from sales lost on server to plain ol' pro.
     
  15. that question was asked 3yrs ago i think they would've found an answer that quesiton, how did you find that thread anyway
     
  16. Khayman

    Khayman I'm sorry Hal... Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    5,518
    Location:
    England
    Also, quit having 0 posts!
     
  17. how does he do it
     
  18. Electronic Punk

    Electronic Punk Administrator Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    18,590
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    He must have posted it in the legacy forum, maybe I don't have posts incrementing there... will check cos that is weird! :)

    Hey, apparently XP Home can only cope with 5 connections! This seems to be a common issue recently!
     
  19. j79zlr

    j79zlr Glaanies script monkey Political User

    Messages:
    2,725
    Location:
    Chicago
    XP Home = 5 concurrent connections, Pro = 10, anything more you need a server OS with the appropriate client licenses. Again, this is concurrent connections, so you could have 100 machines in the network fine, but only 5 or 10 would be able to connect to any one PC at the same time.
     
  20. Electronic Punk

    Electronic Punk Administrator Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    18,590
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    well with server you can have per seat or per server licencing (I think) - don't know what the difference in price is as I don't deal with that stuff. I doubt MS would be so petty as to restrict the number of connections to the number of seats tho :)