Guest DeFactoITguy Posted November 11, 2007 Posted November 11, 2007 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 Posted November 11, 2007 Posted November 11, 2007 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] Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 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 Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 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] Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 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)
Recommended Posts