| |
|
|
|
1
|
|
| Windows XP Pro 10 concurrent connection limitation to a single share |
optyftw
7/12/05 9:52:02 AM
Disciple
|
Anyone know if there is a workaround to get past winXP Pro limiting concurrent connections to a single share to only 10? -----
|
zebra
7/12/05 5:29:02 PM
SuperHero
Titan
|
i. The problem is NOT related to "shares"
ii. The problem is NOT related to WinXP Pro exclusively. It was a method introduced in service-pack-2 as a security implementation for TCP/IP-stack hardening. This operates on the raw-stack level. NOT on the presentation layer.
iii. YES, there is a fix. It is simply a TCP/IP stack and registry modification:
http://www.lvllord.de/download.php?url=en/EvID4226Patch223d-en.zip
iv. No, you CANNOT do this "by hand" or by yourself, unless you understand MS HID-algorithms, (which a select few of us do).
v. This will solve your problem. ;)
vi. Understand what you are doing, by allowing >=10 simultaneous raw TCP/IP sockets into your system. Understand the potential implication of this. Understand, unless you are careful and astute, you probably will get owned, in time...
Edited by zebra: 7/12/2005 5:58:28 PM -----
#SPLCrew on liteonchat.no-ip.com on IRC!
-------------
World exclusive - Pioneer DVR-110 review @ SPL - finally here!
http://www.speedlabs.org
Sneddo and morris stole my micro!
|
brains
7/12/05 5:43:35 PM
Banned
|
Not that I like to correct a SuperHero, but it was introduced in Service Pack 2 ;) -----
#SPLcrew. Or aren't you optical enough?
Quote by aioth
Brains is right.
|
zebra
7/12/05 6:00:36 PM
SuperHero
Titan
|
Quote by brains
Not that I like to correct a SuperHero, but it was introduced in Service Pack 2 ;)
Heheh. Thanks dude.
I probably should also make mention - you want to download THIS VERSION of the pathcher only. Any other version will NOT support WinXP x64. -----
#SPLCrew on liteonchat.no-ip.com on IRC!
-------------
World exclusive - Pioneer DVR-110 review @ SPL - finally here!
http://www.speedlabs.org
Sneddo and morris stole my micro!
|
optyftw
8/12/05 2:53:57 AM
Master
|
Um...that's not a fix, and it has everything to do with windows limiting concurrent connections to a share to 10. The lvllord patch was tried already, and it doesn't fix this problem.
It'll fix your bit torrent connections, but not over 10 connections to a single share. It's microsoft wanting to sell more "server" licenses to people that really don't need a "server" but just a PC to share some trivial files to more than 10 people.
After loooking around for a while, I don't think that it can be done, and if it can, I believe it's something that skirts the license agreement, which is something I can't afford to do at work. -----
|
zebra
8/12/05 6:01:47 AM
SuperHero
Titan
|
Quote by optyftw
After loooking around for a while, I don't think that it can be done, and if it can, I believe it's something that skirts the license agreement, which is something I can't afford to do at work.
So why did you ask in the first place? o_0
As for a methodology on a workaround, there is a way, not always effective:
There's a partial workaround, but it may not work 100% of the time: You can change how long Windows waits before it considers a connection idle and disconnects it, which may allow more clients to access the system so long as they don't all attempt to do so at once.
Use the net command:
net config server /autodisconnect: [timeout]
...where [timeout] is a value in minutes. If you set it to 0, the disconnect happens in a matter of seconds, which may help alleviate the problem to a high degree although not solve it. You can also edit the Registry directly to affect this. In HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanServer\Parameters, create or edit the DWORD AutoDisconnect and set it to the value in minutes to use. If you set it to 0, again, the disconnect will take place in a few seconds.
Using a value of -1 for either of these will cause client connections to persist indefinitely.
The other option, of course, is to run a fileserver, rather than relying on a client-side solution to fileshare.
Finally , why are you not just using SAMBA to take care of all of this, rather than relying on our (already discussed) problematic Windows file share mechanisms? It would take the heart-ache away man...
If you want some help setting it up, let me know.
Edited by zebra: 8/12/2005 6:09:24 AM -----
#SPLCrew on liteonchat.no-ip.com on IRC!
-------------
World exclusive - Pioneer DVR-110 review @ SPL - finally here!
http://www.speedlabs.org
Sneddo and morris stole my micro!
|
optyftw
8/12/05 7:44:59 AM
Master
|
I was continuing my research after I asked, so that's my results as of a few hours after posting the question. Anyways, that's irrelevant.
My personal preference would be a linux box with samba, it would work flawlessly for this applicaiton, as it's just an access database and a couple other supporting files for our department's ticketing system.
The current server that it's run on is unreliable, and it has many other services running on it, so it's prone to scheduled outages and such. It's just too many hoops to jump through to get new software with this company, even though the hardware is there now. Otherwise, we'd have a linux box, and it'd be sql, and not access.
This is what we have to deal with and we were looking for a way around it, preferably a legal one.
We're talking about probably 15 simultaneous connections, no more than 20, but the connections from the front end we use, to the access db, is constant. So I don't think changing the autodisconnect timeout won't help us.
Edited by optyftw: 8/12/2005 7:50:37 AM -----
|
Forums | Networking
|
|
. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in any form without prior authorisation.