Snap server

I am asked to add a few more Windows clients to an all Windows peer-to-peer network. Unfortunately, these few additional clients will push the total number of clients to more than 10. That means for these Windows machines to share files, I have to upgrade the network to a domain. I have been reading on a workaround solution and someone suggested a Snap server. I have read through their site but could not find any mention of this solution. I know that a snap server is compatible with Windows clients, but nowhere on their site that says I can have more than 10 Windows clients.

Anyone here uses Snap server? If so, is it true that I can use this solution as a workaround to the 10-clients limitation of a Windows peer-to-peer? How about other alternatives? This company that I am setting up a network for clearly does not need a domain given their low security requirement.

 

What kind of resources are going to be shared?

 

We use a snap server as a repository for some archived date. The model we use is similar to this one. These is no limit (or its so big I've not got near it) to the number of users. The local network has 35 users.

Where did you get the 10 user workgroup limit? Personally if your network is that big I would strongly recommend you move over to client/server (and use AD or domain in a Windows environment) rather than peer to peer (workgroup). A domain will be a lot easier to manage. This is mainly because in a domain environment, you add new users at the server and base rights on the server users. In a peer to peer, you have a create and maintain a seperate user account on every PC that user uses or connects to.

I am not aware of anything that will stop a workgroup working if you have more than 10 users. Is this a new Windows "feature "? If there is a limit, I expect it is on concurrent connections. You can support a lot more that 10 users on 10 concurrent connections as they will rarely connect similtaniously.

 

I dont know but Microsoft crammed that into our heads in MCSE classes.
I have seen the 10 simutanious connections rear it's ungly head before.
Just share out a printer and have more than 10 desktops connect and let me know what happens

However, I have experienced that if the resources are on a server even if its peer to peer the 10 rule does not apply.

 

I have installed and maintained many peer-to-peer Windows networks, but never have I managed one that has more than 10 PCs. The 10 number comes from textbooks and anecdotes.

This new network is the first time that I have to go beyound this 10 clients number so I would like to know as much as possible about the consequences before I add all the clients to the network. The "server" in question is simply a file and print server. It has been doing its job very well so far albeit under a less than 10 clients situation.

 

If it's actually a "Server" OS you should be ok.
I have "Workgroups" with 20+ workstations connecting to a server.
No problem. But if those resources were on a desktop OS it wouldnt work.

 

Mentioned above but I thought I'd add a little to maybe clear up some stuff.

10 connection limit is for 'simultaneous connections' and applies to workstation operating systems so that NT/2K workstation and any XP version will only allow that many connections at any given time. No problem if 1000 PCs want to connect as long as they aren't all doing it at once.

If you have a machine that needs to allow more than that, get a server OS like Win2K server or 2003. They are limited only by the number of client licenses you have.

Workgroup vs. domain has nothing at all to do with the number of allowed connections.

The workgroup vs. domain issue isn't mainly a matter of security although that could enter in to the mix. Mainly, it is easier to manage a larger network using a domain model than using a workgroup model. There is no set limit but I'd suggest going with a domain for any network having over around 20 PCs and certainly for any over 30 PCs.

If you have a server OS loaded on a machine, you can easily move from workgroup to domain. After the conversion is done, the users basically won't notice any changes but the admin will keep his/her hair longer and probably with less of it turning grey.

 

What does simultaneous connections mean? Let's say I have a workgroup network of 12 Windows PCs with all running Windows XP Pro. One of these PCs is the file server that has a shared folder containing files that the other 11 "clients" want access. Now let's say all of these 11 clients are online and their users browse through this shared folder and access more or less the same files at the same time. Is this the definition of simultaneous connections? How about if each of these 11 clients has mapped a drive on the server? Is the act of mapping considered as a connection even if the client is not actually navigating through the shared folder on the file server?

I know that by default Windows Server is installed with 5 licenses. I have always confused what this means. Is this number of licenses the same as the aformentioned "simultaneous connections "? Or does this number imply that I can install this copy of the server OS on 5 PCs? Also, this licenses limitation applies both to a server OS running in a peer-to-peer as well as a domain controller? Anyone by chance know how much would I pay for 5 more additional licenses? I know the server Os with its default 5 user licenses costs about $1000. Does 5 more licenses cost another $1000?

 

Each PC with a mapped drive counts as a connection when that PC is running. Each PC browsing a share counts as a connection.

The licenses you get when you buy a server OS has to do with the number of clients - although unlike the 10 connection maximum that is written into the OS, it isn't carved in stone. Just a matter of staying legal.

With 2003 being the latest and greatest, you can find some serious discounts on 2000 server with more CALS (the client license piece). For instance, Here is 2000 Advanced Server with 25 CALs for under $800.