Is there any effective limit to how many users can access a shared app on an XP Pro box other than network and processing bandwidth?
Not quite a shared app, but I ran Apache on a winXP box for a company intranet site. It never had a problem. I also had a couple utilities shared from my workstation but very rarely did it ever run from more than one user at a time.
I suppose it depends on the app but I don’t think there is a MS license lockdown (just a WAG) like with IIS on WinXP.
As long as the OS can handle the memory and CPU requirements, it should be ok.
I believe XP pro has a 10 connection limit.
The app itself may also limit you to less than that.
Yes, there’s a “hard coded” limit in Windows NT Workstation, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, and most likely in Windows Vista, wich only allows ten concurrent sessions to a shared folder or printer. This is because you don’t need licenses to access a Windows client, but the client can nonetheless technically function as a file server or print server.
Monday morning I am going out to bid on my biggest job ever. Customer has been recieving estimates of $8K+ for 2k3 server and 15 CAL to run Encompass for a small mortgage co. I was not aware of the cap because the biggest customer I have worked for has 8 machines.
Since all it has to do is run 1 app, I was thinking a less expensive solution with a faily beefy machine may do the trick but 10 ain’t enough so 2k3 it is.
So a machine functioning as a backup server could easily be an XP unit since it probably only talking to 2-3 machines at once?
Yes, but not for the reason you think. There isn’t any limit on outgoing connections, so if it’s pulling data from other machines, you’d be ok.
Back to the Drachillix, would Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2 work?
Hmm, until I just went looking due to your Q i didn’t realize there was a difference. Looks like SBS has a light version of several of the other server items like exchange server and such bundled into it, if so that looks like it might be perfect.
I’m just not sure about the nature of the Encompass application itself, so it would be a fair question to ask the software vendor. There are some notes online regarding .NET framework and SQL Server, so it might be a good fit, but I would check it out thoroughly.
Since this is going to be one of my first forays into setting up a real live server that someone elses is going to have to live with I will be asking the software vendor alot of Q’s and going with many of their reccomended methods since there will be little if anything else to conflict with it, no biggie if its priorities dominate other concerns.
My firm (MS Gold partner, etc.) sells a LOT of SBS packages to 10-100 person companies. Tastes great, lasts a long time & is cheap. It is THE right answer for anyone wanting a small Windows-centric work environment. We also sell hefty 100 server, 5,000 client systems where SBS is NOT the answer.
My advice …
Buy a beefy box w/ RAID, get a good backup solution, put SBS on it and your typical smallish company is good to go. You get WinServer (ie domain controller, DHCP, DNS, centralized app & client management, AV, firewall, etc.) + Exchange + SQL + Sharepoint for one pretty low price.
The only significant hard limit on SBS is 75 user accounts and the inability to join a SBS domain to a Windows forest or to have an SBS domain participate in a trust relationship with another Windows domain. So it is an isolated island for authentication / authorization. There is an upgrade path to regular WinServer if /when the company outgrows the above limitations.
The included SQL install is 100% normal (not throttled / limited) & there are some limits on the Exchange install but those are much less restrictive than the Windows restrictions I mention above.
Drach: if this is your first foray into this stuff, a HUGE amount of complexity you’d otherwise need to handle is removed by doing SBS. SBS has a lot of management tools that are “smarter” (ie more semi-IT pro friendly) than the ones built into regular W2K3. This applies to both initial setup & to ongoing operations.
More precisely, SBS is WinServer 2K3 in every way, with some easy-to-use admin / maintenance UI sugar on top & appropriate supporting services to monitor the installation & drive that UI.
From the POV of software running on the SBS server / Domain Controller or on any other server or client in the domain, there is no perceptible difference from a regular Win2K3 domain. It is pretty unlikely any vertical app will have an issue with SBS, although I agree that it’s wise to check.
While issues are rare, the one we see most often is that some server-oriented vertical apps designed for larger installations expect they will be hosted on a machine that is NOT a domain controller & cannot be hosted on a machine that IS a domain controller. The SBS box is always the Operations Master for all roles as well as a DC.
So occassionally we end up with two server boxes: SBS for the OM/DC & one member server hosting the vertical app. Nowadays we’d usually do the second server as a virt running on the SBS box (with mucho RAM).
I know this reads like a Microsoft marketing piece, but we’re beleivers. SBS is a good tool at a great price, one of the higher points in MS’s offerings.
Note that as of Windows SBS 2003 R2, the SQL version included is SQL 2005 Workgroup edition, not SQL 2000 Standard. There are some feature differences (supporting more memory and bigger databases, but only two CPU sockets), but functionality is generally improved. You can still optimize for performance by using dual or quad-core CPUs.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
LSLGuy, what other limitations are there with SBS? Even though I recommended it, I haven’t used it before, as I am an enterprise guy. It does seem very fit for Drachillix’s purposes.
Thanks I will make sure I order the proper version
Needed to confirm or deny, I was told SBS 2k3 standard is limited to 2 remote users. Is this true?
Drach …
SBS has no inherent limits on the number of simultaneous connections to its file server function, domain controller function, Exchange server, SQL server, etc. Hundreds of connections work fine, limited only by performance.
But …
ALL versions of Win2K3 (& Win2K) are limited to 2 simultaneous remote users. What that means is two* remote desktop sessions. If you want more remote desktop sessions, then you need to get Terminal Services which is costly. And I believe (NOT sure) that Terminal services can’t play on an SBS box. It certainly CAN play on another box in an SBS-controlled domain.
And IMHO, the last thing you’d want to do is permit ordinary end users to use RDC to run apps on any DC, much less on THE keystone critical box in the entire installation. Bottom line: the 2 RDC limit is immaterial.
On perusing Aestivalis’ link I see something I hadn’t noticed before. SQL2005 Workgroup lacks Notification Services, Integration Services (= SQL2000 DTS), and Analysis Services (OLAP). There is some chance that at least one of those might be needed by your main vertical app. Not a huge chance, but definitely worth checking.
Actually, AFAIK we’ve pretty well covered it. I mentioned an Exchange limit before, and it’s simply that Exchange is limited to one Storage Group.
The fundamental point of SBS is it’s about having a one-box complete server infrastructure, so it doesn’t directly support a lot of redundancy. e.g. You get one SQL server license & if that instance quits, you’re SOL.
You can can certainly buy 2 more boxes, join them to your SBS domain, put SQL & a SAN RAID unit on them & make them a failover cluster. But now you’re buying 2 more boxes, 2 copies on Win2K3 Standard, 2 copies of SQL2K5 Standard, a SAN RAID unit, a dedicated switch for the back-channel network, etc.
One of the other selling points is SBS offers SharePoint & Exchange OWA exposed to the internet for external access (telecommuters, field sales force, etc.). A lot of traditional IT types would run screaming from the room if somebody suggested opening port 443 (or 3389!) on a DC to the public internet. But that’s what you end up with in a single-box solution.
SBS is meant to be simple enough that Bob the office manager can be Mr. IT. That often means sacrificing uber-best practices for convenience. But that tradeoff is probably appropriate for most 10-20 person office-centric businesses.
[sub]*Actually, all Win2K & 2K3 servers support three simultaneous RDC connections. But one of them is to the logical console & displaces the physical console when in use. So the documentation normally states the limit as two.
XP by comparison supports the console RDC connection only, with an additional RDC session limit of zero.[/sub]
I have limited experience with SBS, but at one of our clients they use SBS. The built-in backup utility has caused nothing but problems. It fails occasionally, and MS seems to keep coming out with hotfixes to solve the problem. At least it has a few times. Just a word of caution, you may want to get something like Veritas Back-up Exec. The core programs costs around $750 I believe.