Shared folders - connection limit

[Guest DeFactoITguy]

Hi,

 

Background: the calibration lab I work in is looking to set up a

server-type machine where 10+ users will run a non-MS server-side application

ifrom a shared folder. We are trying to figure out which version of Windows

Server to purchase. The desire is for this machine to be a simple client in

a large domain, i.e., not a domain controller, and not running any of the

server programs that come with SBS 2003.

 

My question concerns the number of concurrent connections to shared folders

in SBS 2003. I know than in XP Home the connection limit is 5 users at a

time to a shared folder and 10 for XP Pro. Is there a limit in SBS 2003 (or

regular Windows Server 2003)? Nowhere can I find a published number, but

maybe that's because there isn't one?

 

What adds to my confusion about this is CALs. Am I correct in thinking that

CALs are only used to connect to the individual server programs in SBS 2003?

For example, with the standard 5 CALs that come with SBS 2003, five users (or

machines) can connect to, let's say, Exchange Server or SQL, etc, and this

doesn't affect connections to generic shared folders? And the limit of a

possible 75 connections only applies to the server programs?

 

Sorry for asking the question six different ways. I just want to be sure

there is no confusion in my confusion.

 

Thank you very much in advance.

Freddie L.

Nashua, NH

[Guest simon]

Re: Shared folders - connection limit

 

Go with REGULAR Microsoft Windows 2003 STD Server

You will need a CAL for EACH user that connect to the server

Shared folder is a Service - so you need a CAL !

since you have 10+ users - you need 10+ Windows Server CALS

 

Client CALS are about £ 20 each - with SBS ist at least double that

so if you nou using Exchange etc. don't buy SBS!

 

 

"DeFactoITguy" <DeFactoITguy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:751280F5-73AD-4170-9ACB-C055AAD30EC6@microsoft.com...

> Hi,

>

> Background: the calibration lab I work in is looking to set up a

> server-type machine where 10+ users will run a non-MS server-side

> application

> ifrom a shared folder. We are trying to figure out which version of

> Windows

> Server to purchase. The desire is for this machine to be a simple client

> in

> a large domain, i.e., not a domain controller, and not running any of the

> server programs that come with SBS 2003.

>

> My question concerns the number of concurrent connections to shared

> folders

> in SBS 2003. I know than in XP Home the connection limit is 5 users at a

> time to a shared folder and 10 for XP Pro. Is there a limit in SBS 2003

> (or

> regular Windows Server 2003)? Nowhere can I find a published number, but

> maybe that's because there isn't one?

>

> What adds to my confusion about this is CALs. Am I correct in thinking

> that

> CALs are only used to connect to the individual server programs in SBS

> 2003?

> For example, with the standard 5 CALs that come with SBS 2003, five users

> (or

> machines) can connect to, let's say, Exchange Server or SQL, etc, and this

> doesn't affect connections to generic shared folders? And the limit of a

> possible 75 connections only applies to the server programs?

>

> Sorry for asking the question six different ways. I just want to be sure

> there is no confusion in my confusion.

>

> Thank you very much in advance.

> Freddie L.

> Nashua, NH

>

[Guest Owen Williams [SBS MVP]]

Re: Shared folders - connection limit

 

In article <751280F5-73AD-4170-9ACB-C055AAD30EC6@microsoft.com>,

DeFactoITguy@discussions.microsoft.com says...

> Background: the calibration lab I work in is looking to set up a

> server-type machine where 10+ users will run a non-MS server-side application

> ifrom a shared folder. We are trying to figure out which version of Windows

> Server to purchase. The desire is for this machine to be a simple client in

> a large domain, i.e., not a domain controller, and not running any of the

> server programs that come with SBS 2003.

>

> My question concerns the number of concurrent connections to shared folders

> in SBS 2003. I know than in XP Home the connection limit is 5 users at a

> time to a shared folder and 10 for XP Pro. Is there a limit in SBS 2003 (or

> regular Windows Server 2003)? Nowhere can I find a published number, but

> maybe that's because there isn't one?

>

> What adds to my confusion about this is CALs. Am I correct in thinking that

> CALs are only used to connect to the individual server programs in SBS 2003?

> For example, with the standard 5 CALs that come with SBS 2003, five users (or

> machines) can connect to, let's say, Exchange Server or SQL, etc, and this

> doesn't affect connections to generic shared folders? And the limit of a

> possible 75 connections only applies to the server programs?

>

> Sorry for asking the question six different ways. I just want to be sure

> there is no confusion in my confusion.

 

While I'm a little confused why you are asking this in an SBS forum -

since you say you don't want the server to be SBS and you mention a

"large domain" implying an enterprise network - I agree with Simon about

using Windows Server 2003 Standard. If by some chance this is actually

an SBS network, you can add a Win Svr 2003 as a member server and you

will _not_ need CALs other than SBS CALs you need for your users or

devices. This is because SBS CALs cover usage of other Windows servers

in the network (with some exceptions - see below).

 

Regarding concurrent connections: SBS 2003 is essentially Windows Server

2003 Standard with certain restrictions plus several well-integrated

subsystems, such as Exchange. As such, shares on SBS work exactly like

shares on Windows Server. The default is to allow unlimited

connections, although you can choose to limit them to a specified

number.

 

Regarding CALs: CALs apply to users (real people) or devices (real

hardware) which make "authenticated" accesses to the server. In most

cases, this means a username + password is required somewhere along the

line - usually at login - to use a server resource, such as a share. In

addition, the SBS CAL - unlike a standard Windows Server CAL - is in

effect an "umbrella" CAL which covers most SBS resources: shares,

Exchange, SQL Server (SBS Premium), and similar. The most common

exception is Terminal Services, which does require separate TSCALs.

 

If someone has a CAL assigned to themselves, they can legally access as

many shares as they wish (and the NTFS + Share permissions allow). The

CAL grants (in a legal, not technological, sense) access to the server.

Once you've got that, you can use as many resources as the Administrator

has configured you to use.

 

-- Owen Williams [sBS MVP]

[Guest DeFactoITguy]

Re: Shared folders - connection limit

 

Thank you Simon and Owen for replying.

 

Responses in context - along with more questions :-(

 

"Owen Williams [sBS MVP]" wrote:

>

> While I'm a little confused why you are asking this in an SBS forum -

> since you say you don't want the server to be SBS and you mention a

> "large domain" implying an enterprise network - I agree with Simon about

> using Windows Server 2003 Standard.

 

Without research, I assumed SBS was a stripped-down version of Windows

Server. I realize, now, it is quite the opposite. That said, please forgive

the bad form while I leave this cross-posted.

> Regarding concurrent connections: SBS 2003 is essentially Windows Server

> 2003 Standard with certain restrictions plus several well-integrated

> subsystems, such as Exchange. As such, shares on SBS work exactly like

> shares on Windows Server. The default is to allow unlimited

> connections, although you can choose to limit them to a specified

> number.

 

I made calls to a few resellers today, one of which was conferenced with

someone at Microsoft. The consensus was that we would need Windows Server

2003 Standard with a total of 15 User/Machine CALs. This is where my

confusion comes. Above, you say "unlimited connections," but is that

provided you have a CAL for the server? I have to ask because below you say

a "CAL grants (...) access to the server." So without a CAL, a user/machine

cannot even access a shared folder? [i understand about authentication and

NTFS + Share permissions, as they do not differ from XP]

 

Our goal here is to have a shared folder concurrently accessible to 10+

users, essentially extending the XP Pro limit of 10 concurrent connections.

>

> Regarding CALs: CALs apply to users (real people) or devices (real

> hardware) which make "authenticated" accesses to the server. In most

> cases, this means a username + password is required somewhere along the

> line - usually at login - to use a server resource, such as a share.

> ...

> If someone has a CAL assigned to themselves, they can legally access as

> many shares as they wish (and the NTFS + Share permissions allow). The

> CAL grants (in a legal, not technological, sense) access to the server.

> Once you've got that, you can use as many resources as the Administrator

> has configured you to use.

>

> -- Owen Williams [sBS MVP]

>

 

Thank you so much,

Freddie Lochner

Nashua, NH

[Guest Owen Williams [SBS MVP]]

Re: Shared folders - connection limit

 

In article <F87FAF23-D319-4057-B1F1-60EBD48BADB0@microsoft.com>,

DeFactoITguy@discussions.microsoft.com says...

> I made calls to a few resellers today, one of which was conferenced with

> someone at Microsoft. The consensus was that we would need Windows Server

> 2003 Standard with a total of 15 User/Machine CALs. This is where my

> confusion comes. Above, you say "unlimited connections," but is that

> provided you have a CAL for the server? I have to ask because below you say

> a "CAL grants (...) access to the server." So without a CAL, a user/machine

> cannot even access a shared folder? [i understand about authentication and

> NTFS + Share permissions, as they do not differ from XP]

>

> Our goal here is to have a shared folder concurrently accessible to 10+

> users, essentially extending the XP Pro limit of 10 concurrent connections.

 

I can answer this question better if you can tell me whether SBS will or

will not be part of the network.

 

Since this is an SBS newsgroup ... Yes, your statement "without a CAL, a

user/machine cannot even access a shared folder" is basically correct.

Keep in mind, though, that a CAL is about being legal with your licensed

use of Microsoft server products. As has been mentioned in this

newsgroup numerous times, SBS is rather "loose" when it comes to

enforcing the use of CALs. This is because the SBS2003 CAL licensing

model is quite flexible and, in general, beneficial for the customer.

This "looseness" in NO WAY reduces your responsibility to be properly

licensed. So, although you may be able to _physically_ access shares

without a CAL, that would be a violation of the license.

 

Once a user has a CAL assigned to him or her, that person is licensed to

access the server. [You may also use Device CALs, but User CALs are

more common with SBS and, except for some special cases, are normally

the better choice.] With an SBS CAL, s/he in most cases has unlimited

access to server resources - including to additional servers in the SBS

network - restricted only by any constraints the Administrator has

implemented (permissions, disk space quotas, etc.). As I mentioned in

an earlier post, the most common exception to this is Terminal Services,

which requires a separate TSCAL if you use that.

 

Finally, remember that CAL = *Client* Access License. You say "Our goal

here is to have a shared folder concurrently accessible to 10+ users,

essentially extending the XP Pro limit of 10 concurrent connections."

That's fine - the role of a file server. Each _user_ needs a CAL.

_Shares_ do not need CALs: they are not Users and they are not accessing

anything; they are being accessed.

 

BOTTOM LINE: Ensure each user has a User CAL and you are golden. The

number of shares - and the number of people accessing a share - is

irrelevant.

 

-- Owen Williams (SBS MVP)