Re: Is there a samba server for windows?
From: Ace Fekay [MVP] (PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/04/04
- Next message: AIK: "Re: DNS problems"
- Previous message: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: Auto-dial using rras"
- In reply to: Greg Ercolano: "Re: Is there a samba server for windows?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 18:17:29 -0400
In news:10h2dq8c088m4f8@corp.supernews.com,
Greg Ercolano <erco@3dsite.com> made a post then I commented below
> Ace Fekay [MVP] wrote:
>>> Yes, if running Win2K Professional, it would violate section 1
>>> of the win2k Pro EULA.
>>>
>>> But if you're running win2k server and have the appropriate CALs,
>>> which my client does, I would think they'd be unhindered from
>>> installing an SMB alternative.
>>
>> If you are saying to take the server's CALs and apply them to a
>> Win2k Pro machine, they're not interchangeable.
>
> No, I do understand that Win2K Pro is hardwired for 10
> connections only, and does not support CALs.
>
> It's darn annoying though; sometimes situations call for
> the need to use workstations as a server for data under
> certain special circumstances. Ours is a 'seti@home' kind
> of scenario; distributed computing of large amounts of data
> residing on hardware attached to each workstation.
>
> The fact one can't add CALs to a workstation is really
> bad.
>
> It means these folks will have to upgrade all their
> workstations to server, which they're investigating
> by setting up two test scenarios. But the expense
> is significant, and most feel unwarranted. That's a lot
> of money to spend, just to work around the fact MS
> decided to put a self-crippling hard wired line of code
> in their SMB server; 'if ( connections > 10 ) Fail()'.
>
>>> It's possible the end user may not even need the CALs if the
>>> SMB server isn't doing authentication, if I'm interpreting
>>> the Win2K Server EULA correctly. The situation is a private network,
>>> so authentication is optional.
>>
>> That I'm not sure about. But can tell you it counts sessions, even
>> if they are from the same user logon.
>
> Yes, I believe there's one connection for every volume you access.
> If using mapped drives, then one for each map, eg. if you have
> X:, Y: and Z: mapped to different volumes on the same server.
> (eyes roll)
>
> And in the scenario in question, there will be more than one
> connection from different users on each remote client, so that
> will mean even more connections.
>
> The scenario in question is a distributed processing system,
> sort of like a "seti@home" distributed processing system,
> where remote workstations may be used to process data from
> a single workstation's drive.
>
>> I'm not sure what type of scenario you have, but if the users need
>> to share each of their resources with everyone else, then it's
>> pretty much saying you have a workgroup and not a domain? Wouldn't
>> it be easier to be running AD and share all the users' stuff from
>> one server?
>
> The data is actually video images that are stored on each
> workstation's real time video disk player. It's a large amount
> of data that would take too long to move to a server for processing.
> The workstations are all networked off a fast backbone.
>
> I did recommend they put all the data on the server, but they
> were not able to work that way; takes too long to centralize
> all their data because it's so voluminous. It's an unusual situation
> because of the hardware they're working with. It's a video
> production company.
>
> I think what it comes down to is spending a lot of money
> on Windows Server for each workstation, and the admins just
> need to figure out what's really going wrong with their test
> case, where the server CALs don't seem to be taking effect
> consistently.
I was involved with a distributed processing system about 4 years ago with a
specific site on the INternet, but cannot remember where at this time. Their
software handled the connection. My system (W2k Pro) at the time had at
least 30 connectoids at any given time. Their software controlled that. I
wound up removing it, got tired of the drain on the machine. FTP and web
services allows multiple connections as well on Pro using IIS or any other
3rd party tool. I was using ServU at one time on NT4 and W2k pro machines
allowing 20+ users. The software handled the connections.
>From what I see, your connections are UNC based (mapped drives) to a share,
which is controlled by the subsystem allowing shares, which is limited by
the concurrent connections limit. So at this point, I'm not sure how to help
you in this.
-- Regards, Ace Please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroups so all can benefit. This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights. Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP Microsoft Windows MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services Security Is Like An Onion, It Has Layers HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken; A lifetime commitment for a pig. -- =================================
- Next message: AIK: "Re: DNS problems"
- Previous message: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: Auto-dial using rras"
- In reply to: Greg Ercolano: "Re: Is there a samba server for windows?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
