# Solved: Avoid 10 user limit with use of external network hard drive?



## kimmer13 (Nov 28, 2001)

I understand with XP Pro, only 10 users can map to a specific network drive at a time (and 5 with XP Home). That count must be managed by the machine everyone is mapping to correct? 

So it would be a non issue if you have an external network hard drive? (Not necessarily this model, but something along the lines of 500 GB 7200 RPM NetCenter by Western Digital.)


----------



## ozrom1e (May 16, 2006)

I would ask to have this thread moved to the Networking part of the forum you would get better help there just click on the little triangle at the top right and ask a moderator to move this thread.


----------



## kimmer13 (Nov 28, 2001)

i did as you suggested, thanks. i posted it in the xp forum because this was an xp specific issue - but it certainly pertains to the network as well, so whatever the moderator feels is appropriate is fine by me! thanks - kimmer


----------



## EAFiedler (Apr 25, 2000)

Thread has been moved to the Networking forum with a redirect from the Windows XP forum. 
Good luck.


----------



## StumpedTechy (Jul 7, 2004)

This issue is no longer the case because your connecting to the netcenter or other NAS device) the main thing to do before buying any NAS though is look at the user connection limits they may have as I have seen some with user limitations of their own (usually its number of accounts you can create for security thats the limitiing factor in the NAS).


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

In addition, many of the NAS drives have very limited bandwidth, not nearly as fast as even an XP workstation. They're not really well suited for multiple users.


----------



## TerryNet (Mar 23, 2005)

"... only 10 users can map to a specific network drive at a time ..."

Is that true, or does the limit only occur in My Network Places and 'view workgroup computers'?


----------



## StumpedTechy (Jul 7, 2004)

Yeah its true... but its 10 "active" users. If you have it mapped but inactive then you can get away with more users connecting. Its actually 10 concurrent connections.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

You can have more than 10 concurrent connections. Tested this with three computers each having 5 simultaneous connections for a total of 15 concurrent connetions. 

But you can't have more that 10 computers connecting at the same time. That is something different than the total amount of connections you can have.

Just thought of another way to maybe rephrase it. XP Pro does not have a 10 user limit since you can have the same users on all the computers and that would not solve the problem. It also doesn't have a 10 concurrent connection limit since you can have more than 10 concurrent connections at the same time. But what you can't have is more 10 than different computers connecting at the same time.


----------



## StumpedTechy (Jul 7, 2004)

Okay since you feel that this should be clarified I'll add on to yours a little bit more. I wrote my explination for TerryNet mainly assuming the picture would be clear I meant connections and not actual user accounts -

Windows XP Pro will not allow more than ten active concurrent server message block (SMB) connections to the Windows XP Pro computer.

SMB is defined as -

a protocol for sharing files, printers, serial ports, and communications abstractions such as named pipes and mail slots between computers.

If you want to know more about smb look here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block

Essentially if you have 3 people printing to a PC and 7 people looking at a file on the same PC and another one tries to virtually connect to the serial port then it is not going to work you have hit your limit of 10 concurrent active connections.

Now lets say the printing goes through and the PC then disconnects the active session then you can get the person connecting to the serial port and they can get on but now only 2 more people can print.

So this limit isn't purely just 10 people file sharing either.



> It also doesn't have a 10 concurrent connection limit since you can have more than 10 concurrent connections at the same time. But what you can't have is more 10 than different computers connecting at the same time.


I just wanted to make a side note that if you look at most any document from what I have read they indicate it as concurrent connection not active concurrent connection because the assumption is if your connected to a resource your going to be active on the resource. While this isn't always the case its the better of the 2 scenarios to put into print.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Yes, If a computer disconnects it's network connection to the XP computer, it would not have a conccurrent connection. 

But certainly wanted to clear up that it is not "10 "active" users". Again, it's not "people printing" or "people looking at a file", it's computers. 

It has nothing to do with user limiit but with computer limit. 

To put it simply, XP Pro can't have more than 10 concurrent connections from 10 computers at the same time.


----------



## TerryNet (Mar 23, 2005)

Thanks StumpedTechy and Bob. Pretty sure I understand, but let me state a specific example that somebody I know may want to do. And, kimmer13, don't be afraid to redirect us back to your specific concerns!

18 laptops running XP Pro SP2 connected via wireless to a router (no internet access). Name the laptops L1, L2, ..., L18. L18 has 17 folders (F1, F2, ..., F17) on the C: drive, each shared with network write permission.

Each of the L1 through L17 laptops wants to map a network drive to a specific folder--L1 will map Z to F1 on L18, ..., L17 will map Z to F17 on L18. At the end of a session each will make a one-time write to the mapped folder.

If I really understood your explanations correctly, only 10 of these mapped drive connections will be accepted, the 11th through 17th will fail. But after one of the first 10 laptops disconnects its mapped drive, then another can successfully connect. Right?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

That is correct. Only 10 computers can connect to that one with the shared folders at the same time.

I wanted to clarify that it has nothing to do with a user limit as was posted but with a concurrent computer connection limit. 

---


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

There's always the option of a Linux based server, no connection limits there.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Neither does Win95, Win98 or ME. Not sure they would be such good alternatives either.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Neither does Win95, Win98 or ME. Not sure they would be such good alternatives either.


And please tell us why Linux isn't a good option? Since a vast number of large and small companies use Linux fileservers, could they know something that you don't?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Never said anything about Linux. As you quoted, just Win95, Win98 or ME. 

Now they might be good alternatives but am not sure. As usuall it all depends on the requirements and particular situation.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

In response to my suggestion for Linux, you posted this.


Bob Cerelli said:


> Neither does Win95, Win98 or ME. Not sure they would be such good alternatives *either*.


Perhaps I flunked reading comprehension, but that seems to be clearly grouping my suggestion for Linux in with the other W9x systems. Perhaps you could make an effort to be a bit clearer in your posts?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Again, never said anything about Linux or grouping or anything like that. Yes RIF.

So to make thinge even clearer, again, depending on the requirements and situation, Linux, like Win98, ME etc. may or may not be a good alternatives. There are other alternatives as well to the 10 concurrent computer connection limit as well.


----------



## kimmer13 (Nov 28, 2001)

thanks for all the input. what i gather from all this is that *if* we do not want a server, and want to go the networked hard drive route, i need to check the limits of the device i consider, plus the performance - bandwith.

There are 2 databases that are accessed by the software program on each pc. I have 9 current users that have an s: drive mapped to the pc with the 20MB database (They only have 9 licenses for the program at this time). They want to add 4 more in the near future. Each user can only be logged into one of the two databases at a time. So it seems I would also have the option of relocating one of the databases to a different pc, and that would reduce the likelihood of more than 10 connections to one pc.

I will mark this solved - thanks again for the information. kimmer13


----------

