|
windows
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
what is XP network connection limit?Hi All,
I have ~ 65 computers running Kaspersky's Communications Client with network connections to an XP-Pro-SP3 machine running Kaspersky's Amdinistartion Kit. Three of the last computers I configured to read the Admin kit refuse to communicate with the Kit (Kaspersky error message: physical network error). It has been suggested to me that I have reached the maximum connection limit to the Admin Kit. Does anyone know what the network connection limit is on XP-Pro-SP3? And, is there a way to increase it? Many thanks, -T ToddAndMargo wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Hi All, The limit for concurrent network connections to an XP Pro host is 10, and > > I have ~ 65 computers running Kaspersky's Communications > Client with network connections to an XP-Pro-SP3 machine > running Kaspersky's Amdinistartion Kit. Three of the last > computers I configured to read the Admin kit refuse to > communicate with the Kit (Kaspersky error message: physical > network error). > > It has been suggested to me that I have reached the > maximum connection limit to the Admin Kit. Does anyone > know what the network connection limit is on XP-Pro-SP3? > > And, is there a way to increase it? > > Many thanks, > -T can't be increased. You'd need a Windows server to do this....IMO, 65 workstations is far too many to manage in a workgroup environment anyway (a domain is so much easier to manage). Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > ToddAndMargo wrote: The only function this XP machine has is the Kaspersky Admin Kit.>> Hi All, >> >> I have ~ 65 computers running Kaspersky's Communications >> Client with network connections to an XP-Pro-SP3 machine >> running Kaspersky's Amdinistartion Kit. Three of the last >> computers I configured to read the Admin kit refuse to >> communicate with the Kit (Kaspersky error message: physical >> network error). >> >> It has been suggested to me that I have reached the >> maximum connection limit to the Admin Kit. Does anyone >> know what the network connection limit is on XP-Pro-SP3? >> >> And, is there a way to increase it? >> >> Many thanks, >> -T > > The limit for concurrent network connections to an XP Pro host is 10, and > can't be increased. You'd need a Windows server to do this....IMO, 65 > workstations is far too many to manage in a workgroup environment anyway (a > domain is so much easier to manage). I may misunderstand something here. I thought the 10 network connections was for 10 file shares. I thought there was a much higher number for connections to a (non file sharing) network service? (I get away with about 60 connections to the Admin Kit.) Am I missing something? -T Hi
You should consider this. http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/default.aspx Jack (MS, MVP-Networking) Show quoteHide quote "ToddAndMargo" <ToddAndMa***@invalid.com> wrote in message news:uyJrTBsbJHA.3692@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Hi All, > > I have ~ 65 computers running Kaspersky's Communications > Client with network connections to an XP-Pro-SP3 machine > running Kaspersky's Amdinistartion Kit. Three of the last > computers I configured to read the Admin kit refuse to > communicate with the Kit (Kaspersky error message: physical > network error). > > It has been suggested to me that I have reached the > maximum connection limit to the Admin Kit. Does anyone > know what the network connection limit is on XP-Pro-SP3? > > And, is there a way to increase it? > > Many thanks, > -T > Jack (MVP-Networking). wrote:
> Hi Hi Jack,> You should consider this. > http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/default.aspx > Jack (MS, MVP-Networking) Don't care much for sbs servers: they have built in domain controller, whether or not you want one. (I find them to be a total, instable pain in the ass.) I will go with the simplest, straight 2008 server I can find. Thank you for the heads up, -T ToddAndMargo wrote:
> Jack (MVP-Networking). wrote: Yes, you have to run SBS as a DC & it must hold all the FSMO roles.>> Hi >> You should consider this. >> http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/default.aspx >> Jack (MS, MVP-Networking) > > Hi Jack, > > Don't care much for sbs servers: they have built in domain > controller, whether or not you want one. > (I find them Not if you set them up & administer them properly. Same is true for any > to be a total, instable pain in the ass.) system. > I will go with I'd still recommend a domain model - thinking about a 65-computer workgroup > the simplest, straight 2008 server I can find. gives me a headache. Show quoteHide quote > > Thank you for the heads up, > -T
Show quote
Hide quote
"ToddAndMargo" <ToddAndMa***@invalid.com> wrote in message Actually I have a new client who claims to have set up an SBS server as news:#lLKN2sbJHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > Jack (MVP-Networking). wrote: > > > Hi > > You should consider this. > > http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/default.aspx > > Jack (MS, MVP-Networking) > > > Hi Jack, > > Don't care much for sbs servers: they have built in domain > controller, whether or not you want one. (I find them > to be a total, instable pain in the ass.) I will go with > the simplest, straight 2008 server I can find. > > Thank you for the heads up, > -T a workgroup-only server. I haven't looked at it yet so I'm not sure what they did. In any event we support a lot of SBS installations that are entirely stable. If you really want to manage 65 users in a workgroup environment though I guess that's up to you. Sounds like "a total, instable, pain in the ass" to me though. :-) -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP Roland Schorr & Tower http://www.rolandschorr.com http://www.officeforlawyers.com Author - The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft Outlook 2007: http://tinyurl.com/5m3f5q Ben M. Schorr - MVP (OneNote) wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "ToddAndMargo" <ToddAndMa***@invalid.com> wrote in message If they did manage to do it so that it's not throwing up errors and shutting > news:#lLKN2sbJHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > >> Jack (MVP-Networking). wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> You should consider this. >>> http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/default.aspx >>> Jack (MS, MVP-Networking) >> >> >> Hi Jack, >> >> Don't care much for sbs servers: they have built in domain >> controller, whether or not you want one. (I find them >> to be a total, instable pain in the ass.) I will go with >> the simplest, straight 2008 server I can find. >> >> Thank you for the heads up, >> -T > > Actually I have a new client who claims to have set up an SBS server > as a workgroup-only server. I haven't looked at it yet so I'm not > sure what they did. down every few hours, they're at the very least in violation of the EULA. > Yup, me too.> In any event we support a lot of SBS installations that are entirely > stable. > Amen, bruddah.> If you really want to manage 65 users in a workgroup environment > though I guess that's up to you. Sounds like "a total, instable, > pain in the ass" to me though. :-) Show quoteHide quote > > > -Ben- > Ben M. Schorr, MVP > Roland Schorr & Tower > http://www.rolandschorr.com > http://www.officeforlawyers.com > Author - The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft Outlook 2007: > http://tinyurl.com/5m3f5q Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote:
> If they did manage to do it so that it's not throwing up errors and shutting Dudes! I am only describing the roll of the XP server> down every few hours, they're at the very least in violation of the EULA. >> In any event we support a lot of SBS installations that are entirely >> stable. > > Yup, me too. >> If you really want to manage 65 users in a workgroup environment >> though I guess that's up to you. Sounds like "a total, instable, >> pain in the ass" to me though. :-) that administers the Kaspersky Admin Kit. There are several other servers on the network who's rolls I am not describing. I am only looking for the maximum (not file sharing) network connections to XP. And, yes it is my fault everyone got off topic by taking a swipe at SBS server. Could we get back on topic? Many thanks, -T ToddAndMargo wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote: Youch....if it's rolling, you have other problems. And let's put the word > >> If they did manage to do it so that it's not throwing up errors and >> shutting down every few hours, they're at the very least in >> violation of the EULA. >>> In any event we support a lot of SBS installations that are entirely >>> stable. >> >> Yup, me too. >>> If you really want to manage 65 users in a workgroup environment >>> though I guess that's up to you. Sounds like "a total, instable, >>> pain in the ass" to me though. :-) > > Dudes! I am only describing the roll of the XP server "server" in double quotes if it's immediately prefaced by the letters "XP" ;-) > that administers the Kaspersky Admin Kit. There are For anything that uses the server service, it's 10. See > several other servers on the network who's rolls I > am not describing. > > I am only looking for the maximum (not file sharing) > network connections to XP. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882. If Kaspersky's admin tools are designed to run on XP in a workgroup perhaps you should check with their support. > And, yes it is my fault You need a server...hence our digression. Caveat emptor in usenet ;-)> everyone got off topic by taking a swipe at SBS > server. Could we get back on topic? Show quoteHide quote > > Many thanks, > -T Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote:
> Youch....if it's rolling, you have other problems. And let's put the word "server" here is describing a function, not a trade mark.> "server" in double quotes if it's immediately prefaced by the letters "XP" > ;-) >> I am only looking for the maximum (not file sharing) Kaspersky does not use the Server service. This is not>> network connections to XP. > > For anything that uses the server service, it's 10. See > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882. file sharing. As far as I can tell, it is one socket talking to another. From the registry, "13000:TCP"="13000:TCP:*:Enabled:Kaspersky 13000 TCP" "14000:TCP"="14000:TCP:*:Enabled:Kaspersky 14000 TCP" "15000:UDP"="15000:UDP:*:Enabled:Kaspersky 15000 UDP" If that helps. > If Kaspersky's admin tools are designed to run on XP in a workgroup perhaps I have. No answer. Figured you guys had more knowledge.> you should check with their support. > You need a server...hence our digression. Caveat emptor in usenet ;-) Not using file sharing. XP is a much simpler and less expensivesystem. I want to stick with XP if I can for this server (function not trade mark). Speed/performance is not an issue. Many thanks, -T ToddAndMargo wrote:
> Not using file sharing. XP is a much simpler and less expensive I should probably note here that this Admin Kit is running> system. I want to stick with XP if I can for this server (function > not trade mark). Speed/performance is not an issue. as a Virtual Machine (Virtual Box). I did ask them (VBox) if the VM's networking (host networking) was the cause of the "Physical Network Error" but they said "no". I really do not want the extra complication and expense of an addition Windows Server (trade mark this time) if I can avoid it. -T ToddAndMargo wrote:
> I am only looking for the maximum (not file sharing) Found this:> network connections to XP. http://www.megaleecher.net/Tcpip.sys_Patch_To_Increase_Windows_XP_Connection_Limit Is this what I am looking for? -T ToddAndMargo wrote:
> ToddAndMargo wrote: Found this too: http://half-open.com/>> I am only looking for the maximum (not file sharing) >> network connections to XP. > > Found this: > > http://www.megaleecher.net/Tcpip.sys_Patch_To_Increase_Windows_XP_Connection_Limit > > > Is this what I am looking for? > > -T Sound like what I am looking for. Any comments? -T "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwe***@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote in Show quoteHide quote message news:OLlQ8c1bJHA.5976@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: It may well be throwing errors and shutting down, if in fact they > Ben M. Schorr - MVP (OneNote) wrote: > > > "ToddAndMargo" <ToddAndMa***@invalid.com> wrote in message > > news:#lLKN2sbJHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > > > >> Jack (MVP-Networking). wrote: > >> > >>> Hi > >>> You should consider this. > >>> http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/default.aspx > >>> Jack (MS, MVP-Networking) > >> > >> Hi Jack, > >> > >> Don't care much for sbs servers: they have built in domain > >> controller, whether or not you want one. (I find them > >> to be a total, instable pain in the ass.) I will go with > >> the simplest, straight 2008 server I can find. > >> > >> Thank you for the heads up, > >> -T > > > > Actually I have a new client who claims to have set up an SBS server > > as a workgroup-only server. I haven't looked at it yet so I'm not > > sure what they did. > > If they did manage to do it so that it's not throwing up errors and shutting > down every few hours, they're at the very least in violation of the EULA. succeeded in doing what they claim they've done. They're on another island and I haven't gotten over there to look at the server yet. Probably next week. -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP Roland Schorr & Tower http://www.rolandschorr.com http://www.officeforlawyers.com Author - The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft Outlook 2007: http://tinyurl.com/5m3f5q |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics