Shared folder limits on XP that weren't on Win98

[Guest]

Hi,

We have a setup with 17 WIN 98 SE PCs in an isolated network. (16 users, one
MASTER) MASTER has a share configured and the other 16 PC have mapped drives
to that share and it works fine.

We installed 17 new XP PRO systems (again, 16 users, one MASTER) that we
hoped would replace the above. The new MASTER PC has the file share with
simple file sharing turned off and maximum users set in the properties for
the share. Performance is/was not an issue as the files were small and light
processing is typical.

Problem is, with the XP MASTER we are now limited to ten PCs mapping drives
to the MASTER's share, a limitation not in WIN 98. Any more than 10 PCs
mapping to the share are unable to connect, receiving a message that the
maximum number of connections has been reached. When we put the WIN98 MASTER
on the XP network it shares to all 16 XP PCs just fine.

What do we need to do for these XP PRO PCs to be able to access the files on
the XP MASTER's share as we can do with the Win98 MASTER?

Thanks in advance!

EG

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

Hi,

You need a server OS to bypass that limit - it is a hard-coded limitation of
WinXP, there is no workaround to the number of inbound connections (5 in
Home, 10 in Pro).

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the prompt reply! it definitely answers our question - In the
meantime we were able to use thw WIN98 system as the shared file repository.

For planning purposes, is there any official MS link(s) to XP limitations
that were not in Win98 so we can plan accordingly? We know XP has
enhancements, but need to look at what differences, restrictions, changes
from WIN98/XP/2K workstation O/S so we don't encounter unexpected problems
during implementations.

Thanks again,

EG

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

Hi,

Thanks for the prompt reply! it definitely answers our question - In the
meantime we were able to use thw WIN98 system as the shared file
repository.

That's what I would've done too. Used as a file server, this should be just
fine.

For planning purposes, is there any official MS link(s) to XP limitations
that were not in Win98 so we can plan accordingly? We know XP has
enhancements, but need to look at what differences, restrictions, changes
from WIN98/XP/2K workstation O/S so we don't encounter unexpected problems
during implementations.

No official links I know of, but there are some major changes in the way
file sharing works. As your not using a domain (or at least I gather that
you are not), you will find that you cannot set restrictions per user on who
can access which machine. In WinXP, a shared file is a shared file to all -
the only thing you can control is read/write privileges. Other changes
shouldn't affect the type of setup you describe, the only big issue I can
see is your file server.

Frankly, on a peer-to-peer network such as you describe, I see no use for a
server OS either, I'd just use Win9x, or preferably a linux server, to
handle those shares. Configuring a Linux file server isn't too tough, and
may be a consideration for you, if nothing else than to get away from the
outdated Win9x line. Several of the free distro's can handle this.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Guest]

Rick, you're right on the button - It's a peer network, isolated from other
connections and there are no custom sharing rules to apply. It's "just make
this available to the applications on the clients" .

Thanks for the "vendor neutral" answer and advice. It helps us provide cost
and performance effective answers and untimately makes the Microsoft products
more useful and desireable in open systems environments.

Hey, Stop over at BBR ( http://www.dslreports.com/forum/security) sometime -
Several other MS MVPs frequent that and their MShelp/Software forums - see
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9879717 .

EG