Linux / Samba Limitations

Hi, I currently am in charge of a small filesharing network of 9 users (it
used to be 5 users and is now growing steadily). The network file server
is currently a Windows XP host with a number of shares defined. This host
has a built in OS limit of 10 concurrent users connecting to it's network
shares and to get more we have to upgrade to the Windows Server edition of
Windows at great cost. (We will soon be adding a few more users taking us
over the 10 user limit) so I'd rather pursue a Linux based option.

Can people confirm that a Linux / Samba combination has no artificial built
in restriction on the number of concurrent users or at least will cope with
20 concurrent users. (assuming suitably powerful hardware to host it)

Does anyone know if I ran a Linux installation on a Virtual Machine on my
Windows XP box would that inherit the 10 user limit from the hosting
Windows OS? This would be very useful for trialing the new approach if it
will work.

Any and all advice welcome.

Thanks in advance.

On 2007-10-04, William <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hi, I currently am in charge of a small filesharing network of 9 users (it
> used to be 5 users and is now growing steadily). The network file server
> is currently a Windows XP host with a number of shares defined. This host
> has a built in OS limit of 10 concurrent users connecting to it's network
> shares and to get more we have to upgrade to the Windows Server edition of
> Windows at great cost. (We will soon be adding a few more users taking us
> over the 10 user limit) so I'd rather pursue a Linux based option.
>
> Can people confirm that a Linux / Samba combination has no artificial built
> in restriction on the number of concurrent users or at least will cope with
> 20 concurrent users. (assuming suitably powerful hardware to host it)

It does not have such a limit.

> Does anyone know if I ran a Linux installation on a Virtual Machine on my
> Windows XP box would that inherit the 10 user limit from the hosting
> Windows OS? This would be very useful for trialing the new approach if it
> will work.

Probably not. Do you have some defunct POS computer lying around? It
will probably be good enough to be a samba server, it is an easier
approach than a virtual machine, in my opinion.

i

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:42:10 +0100, William wrote:

> Hi, I currently am in charge of a small filesharing network of 9 users
> (it used to be 5 users and is now growing steadily). The network file
> server is currently a Windows XP host with a number of shares defined.
> This host has a built in OS limit of 10 concurrent users connecting to
> it's network shares and to get more we have to upgrade to the Windows
> Server edition of Windows at great cost. (We will soon be adding a few
> more users taking us over the 10 user limit) so I'd rather pursue a
> Linux based option.
>
> Can people confirm that a Linux / Samba combination has no artificial
> built in restriction on the number of concurrent users or at least will
> cope with 20 concurrent users. (assuming suitably powerful hardware to
> host it)
>
> Does anyone know if I ran a Linux installation on a Virtual Machine on
> my Windows XP box would that inherit the 10 user limit from the hosting
> Windows OS? This would be very useful for trialing the new approach if
> it will work.
>
> Any and all advice welcome.
>
> Thanks in advance.

Linux doesn't have a client limit for anything. The only limits are the
capacity of the hardware. I don't know if Windows can get in the way of a
VM, I doubt it. Installing VMware on Linux takes a few minutes, I would
guess that installing in on Windows isn't any harder. Installing the VM
on top of VMware is also very easy, you start the empty VM which boots
from it's DVD driver (either real or virtual) and then you do the
install. I you configure the VM's CD drive to use the distro's install
iso you don't even have to burn a DVD.

William wrote:
> Hi, I currently am in charge of a small filesharing network of 9 users (it
> used to be 5 users and is now growing steadily). The network file server
> is currently a Windows XP host with a number of shares defined. This host
> has a built in OS limit of 10 concurrent users connecting to it's network
> shares and to get more we have to upgrade to the Windows Server edition of
> Windows at great cost. (We will soon be adding a few more users taking us
> over the 10 user limit) so I'd rather pursue a Linux based option.
>
> Can people confirm that a Linux / Samba combination has no artificial built
> in restriction on the number of concurrent users or at least will cope with
> 20 concurrent users. (assuming suitably powerful hardware to host it)
>
> Does anyone know if I ran a Linux installation on a Virtual Machine on my
> Windows XP box would that inherit the 10 user limit from the hosting
> Windows OS? This would be very useful for trialing the new approach if it
> will work.
>
> Any and all advice welcome.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

I have between 300-600 servers writing a couple hundred GB a day across
a couple samba servers. It can definitely handle 20.

If it is only a fileserver that you are looking to build, checkout
http://www.openfiler.com. It is a open source turn-key NAS distro, that
handles nfs, samba, iscsi, users and volume management.

I personally do not use it, but I have heard good things about it.


Alexander Spitzer
Bonsai Bonanza
http://www.BonsaiBonanza.com

On Oct 4, 7:42 am, "William" <w...@nospamforme.com> wrote:
> Hi, I currently am in charge of a small filesharing network of 9 users (it
> used to be 5 users and is now growing steadily). The network file server
> is currently a Windows XP host with a number of shares defined. This host
> has a built in OS limit of 10 concurrent users connecting to it's network
> shares and to get more we have to upgrade to the Windows Server edition of
> Windows at great cost. (We will soon be adding a few more users taking us
> over the 10 user limit) so I'd rather pursue a Linux based option.
>
> Can people confirm that a Linux / Samba combination has no artificial built
> in restriction on the number of concurrent users or at least will cope with
> 20 concurrent users. (assuming suitably powerful hardware to host it)
>
> Does anyone know if I ran a Linux installation on a Virtual Machine on my
> Windows XP box would that inherit the 10 user limit from the hosting
> Windows OS? This would be very useful for trialing the new approach if it
> will work.
>
> Any and all advice welcome.
>
> Thanks in advance.


Your linux VM will not inherit any of your "windows" limits as it is a
dedicated OS installation with it's own virtualized h/w. And no there
is no such limit defined in samba on linux to control the numbers of
users who can connect.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Alexander N. Spitzer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>William wrote:
>> Hi, I currently am in charge of a small filesharing network of 9 users (it
>> used to be 5 users and is now growing steadily). The network file server
>> is currently a Windows XP host with a number of shares defined. This host
>> has a built in OS limit of 10 concurrent users connecting to it's network
>> shares and to get more we have to upgrade to the Windows Server edition of
>> Windows at great cost. (We will soon be adding a few more users taking us
>> over the 10 user limit) so I'd rather pursue a Linux based option.
>>
>> Can people confirm that a Linux / Samba combination has no artificial built
>> in restriction on the number of concurrent users or at least will cope with
>> 20 concurrent users. (assuming suitably powerful hardware to host it)
>>
>> Does anyone know if I ran a Linux installation on a Virtual Machine on my
>> Windows XP box would that inherit the 10 user limit from the hosting
>> Windows OS? This would be very useful for trialing the new approach if it
>> will work.
>>
>> Any and all advice welcome.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>
>I have between 300-600 servers writing a couple hundred GB a day across
>a couple samba servers. It can definitely handle 20.
>
>If it is only a fileserver that you are looking to build, checkout
>http://www.openfiler.com. It is a open source turn-key NAS distro, that
>handles nfs, samba, iscsi, users and volume management.
>
>I personally do not use it, but I have heard good things about it.
>
>
>Alexander Spitzer
>Bonsai Bonanza
>http://www.BonsaiBonanza.com


Another is freenas http://www.freenas.org

--
"When I think back on all the crap I learned in Vax school
It's a wonder I fixed anything at all." (to the tune of Kodachrome)
pechter-at-gmail.com