10 connections to win2kws maximum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmac
  • Start date Start date
M

mmac

Scenario: I have 11 win2kWS computers on a win2k domain that have a mapped
drive to a 12th. The 12th has the drive mapped to itself just because it is
part of logon script that does it to all of them.
The 11 machines will send a file to the mapped drive (on the 12th
machine) and then wait for that machine to process a response file which is
then picked up and then they are done with each other for a while. This
happens all day. Usually just fine but not always.
I recently came across an issue where I tried to open the mapped drive
from one of the workstations and was greeted with a message that the
"maximum connections has been reached". After a little research I find that
the maximum number of "conections" that a workstation can have is ten at a
time. Thsi could explain the wierd failures I get from time to time.

The questions I have are:
What type of connection is the messsage reffering to? It must be
more than just a mapped drive. There must be connections being made all the
time by the OS which could use up that limit right?

How can I view the current connections to a workstation? net view
session?

If I set autodisconnect to 1 minute, will that help if I am already
overloading the connection limit as it seems I am with these 12 units?

Do I understand this issue correctly?
 
Thanks, Should I understand the article to say that the "connection" is actually
a "session" which can be comprised as multiple mapped drives or pipes or
whatever as long as they all are under a single login ?
Is there a way to monitor or record the connections in realtime so I can verify
that this is happening? will Perfmon do this and keep a log?
 
mmac said:
Thanks, Should I understand the article to say that the "connection" is actually
a "session" which can be comprised as multiple mapped drives or pipes or
whatever as long as they all are under a single login ?
Is there a way to monitor or record the connections in realtime so I can verify
that this is happening? will Perfmon do this and keep a log?
Click to expand...

Do these systems only have to connect to put a file on the workstation? If
so, you could script it with WSH. You could also run IIS and upload files
with ASP. OR, you could upgrade.

FWIW...
The article says there are WORKAROUNDS. They're not solutions. You will be
introducing issues into your equation which will require you to manage
connectivity. If time is money, the server OS will pay for itself. In a
client/server environment, a client should not take on the role of a server.
Yes, you can offer server services but this should not be the norm, but
rather the exception. You are assigning the role of server to this
workstation and extending past the limits built into it.

A peer-peer network is more difficult to manage than a client/server
network. You are increasing that difficulty. If you're trying to save
money then this is not the solution.

--
Roland

This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose.


--
Roland

This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose.
 
You are absolutely correct and no, money isn't the issue. I have a server
available (or I'll buy another one if I have to) and it is not a big deal to
move the drop folder to it and make this problem go away, If in fact it is the
problem. What I am after is confirmation. I want to watch the connections being
made and dropped to witness the process. I have my hypothesis, now I have to
confirm it through verification.
My background is electronic process controls where I have storage scopes and
loggers to see a process happen, I can't just assume it did. I'm stuck in that
mindset where I need to see it to be confident. Otherwise I'll never be sure I
nailed it.
But no one has been able to tell me where I can find a utility to monitor this
process. Is it that difficult to watch?
 
You can 'see' sessions, including user account, connected time, and idle
time in Computer Management. If you want to capture packets, you need SMS
or some third party program. You can do it on the Server with Network
Monitor.

Doug Sherman
MCSE Win2k/NT4.0, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP
 
You need to learn the basics of client/server
networking. If you install and configure a server with
the server software and establish a domain, and purchase
the correct # of CALS, you can have ALL your machines on
at the same time accessing whatever you want to access.
Screwing around with 12 boxes in a workgroup setting is a
royal pain in the A$$. Get a server and be done with it!
 
Read it again. You will find that the first sentence in the post is " I have 11
win2kWS computers on a win2k domain "
Then if you have something useful to add to the discussion please feel free to
do so.
 
so what are you looking for? a way around the 10 connection limit??
1. use ftp instead of shared folders. a freeware ftp server or the ms one
should do what you need.
2. work around the timing problem by having clients retry if they fail to
make the connection the first time. you may have to play with timing out
sessions or force clients to disconnect after each drop.
3. move the shared drop folder to the server. have the drop box computer
map a drive to there and monitor for new folders on the mapped drive.
4. have the clients keep their files in a shared folder on each machine and
have the drop box go pull them back.
5. write your own tcp/ip client/server app and transfer all the data you
want, no connection limits there.

probably a bunch of other ways...

or are you trying to figure out why you hit the 10 connection limit?? try
monitoring with the Computer Management console, you can watch the sessions
and open files from there and see when you hit the limit. not that this
will help much unless you do something to prevent or get rid of the
connections faster than the clients have to deliver their data. but if you
really want to know 'why' this should show it to you.
 
The reason I am pursuing this so tenaciously is that I want to see what a
"connection" consists of. If I educate myself on the PRECISE meaning of a
"connection" I can avoid this problem in the future. I have heard of this
limitation before but I have never seen it show up in actual practice, Now that
I have an opportunity to see it, I want to examine the scenario for all the info
I can.
I have had a weird problem with an app (which is a credit card processing
application) since it's installation. No one from the application developer had
a clue why I was having a problem with dropped transactions. They claimed to
have many many clients large and small using it with no problem at all. It may
well turn out to be that all the clients that have no problem with it were not
reaching this limit either because they had only a couple clients or, were aware
of this limitation and installed on the server. It's also interesting that the
application developer didn't mandate that requirement from the beginning
(thought if I can prove this I'll bet they soon will.) It's largely academic at
this point because I will most likely implement your suggestion number three,
but it is interesting anyway. I'm sure I will have this come up again, I do most
of my work for non-profits with small budgets so I have to squeeze the most I
can out of the resources available.
Thanks for the help. I appreciate it.
 
mmac said:
The reason I am pursuing this so tenaciously is that I want to see what a
"connection" consists of.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's time to get a sniffer?! However, everyone will have to be on a
shared hub, and not a switching hub.
If I educate myself on the PRECISE meaning of a
"connection" I can avoid this problem in the future.
Click to expand...
You can avoid this problem now with a client/server environment. (O:=
Want to see all TCP/IP connections to your client(role server)?
netstat -a
I have heard of this
limitation before but I have never seen it show up in actual practice,
Click to expand...
I have, the last time someone wanted to make more than 10 simultaneous
connections to a Windows client OS.
Now that
I have an opportunity to see it, I want to examine the scenario for all the info
I can.
Click to expand...
That's great but what about the business? You never should be testing in
production.
I have had a weird problem with an app (which is a credit card processing
application) since it's installation. No one from the application developer had
a clue why I was having a problem with dropped transactions. They claimed to
have many many clients large and small using it with no problem at all.
Click to expand...
Did they claim they were in a Windows peer-peer environment with more than
10 simultaneous connections? *raises eyebrow* If so, have them contact me.
I'm sure Microsoft is interested in knowing how this is possible also.
It may
well turn out to be that all the clients that have no problem with it were not
reaching this limit either because they had only a couple clients or, were aware
of this limitation and installed on the server.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me.
It's also interesting that the
application developer didn't mandate that requirement from the beginning
(thought if I can prove this I'll bet they soon will.)
Click to expand...
A pre-condition of a network beyond its limits is not a factor a developer
will cover in their minimum system requirements. They guarantee their
software to work on a network that can communicate. If the network has
connectivity issues not related to the software, then the software is not
relevant in the equation.
It's largely academic at
this point because I will most likely implement your suggestion number three,
but it is interesting anyway. I'm sure I will have this come up again, I do most
of my work for non-profits with small budgets so I have to squeeze the most I
can out of the resources available.
Click to expand...
That's unfortunate and I sympathize, having worked with these types of
organizations myself but I still think law firms are the worst.

--
Roland

This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose.

-Technet Script Center-
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/scriptcenter/default.asp
-MSDN Library-
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
 
"Law firms are the worst". How ironic! I have heard that complaint before.
Fortunately I have never had the experience of dealing with one of those. I
think _I_ would become the non-profit in that exchange.

Thanks for the feedback, I can't argue with anything you say. This is the slow
season at the place that has this issue so it's the best time to play around
with it. And not everyone has a spare network laying around to experiment with.
Another application in use there has a nasty habit of disconnecting and
re-assigning mapped drives using some pretty flakey criteria. I finally got the
developer to make it possible to stop doing that with a switch so that will go
away. But he can't understand why I want to map my own drives...
.... It's a living I suppose and I still enjoy the challenge.
 
:
: "Law firms are the worst". How ironic! I have heard that complaint before.
: Fortunately I have never had the experience of dealing with one of those.
I
: think _I_ would become the non-profit in that exchange.

Ha! Absolutely! Very well put. (O:= I think accounting firms are second
but that may be regional. I had to deal with Arthur Andersen for a few
years also. Ever see the movie, The Firm? (not the group) If so, now
switch from law to accounting and you have what I experienced with Arthur
Andersen. (Four of us thought about your application today so we're billing
you for an hour.......each!)

: Thanks for the feedback, I can't argue with anything you say.
Well, don't tell Dave Anderson. He argues with everything I say. Must be
true love!

: This is the slow
: season at the place that has this issue so it's the best time to play
around
: with it. And not everyone has a spare network laying around to experiment
with.
I hear ya' but still have to give my disclaimer. It's not like I've ever
done it though. *cough*

: Another application in use there has a nasty habit of disconnecting and
: re-assigning mapped drives using some pretty flakey criteria. I finally
got the
: developer to make it possible to stop doing that with a switch so that
will go
: away. But he can't understand why I want to map my own drives...
I've never heard of an application mapping drives on the fly but rather a
script to load the app and then dump the mappings after the app terminated.
(Novell days)

: ... It's a living I suppose and I still enjoy the challenge.
Lately it's been a challenge to enjoy making a living. Jes' sayin'...

Happy New Year to you and wishing you a bigger budget next year. (O;=

--
Roland

This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose.

-Technet Script Center-
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/scriptcenter/default.asp
-MSDN Library-
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
 
Arthur Anderson, yea, I heard they had some interesting accounting practices...

and a bigger budget to you as well,
thanks.
 
Back
Top