Using XP as an NAS

We are considering placing XP Pro on a PC and treating as an NAS (Network
Attached Storage). We have been using the Adaptec Snap Server 4500 (uses
the Linux kernel) appliance as an NAS. Is it a good idea to have XP Pro as
an NAS as opposed to using Windows Server 2000? What are the pro's and
con's?

Marathoner

 

1. Maximum ten connections (users) concurrently.
2. XP is tuned to give priority to applications running in the foreground.
Server is tuned to give priority to background processes.

"marathoner" <rajk2000@msn.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:uSW4aLBTKHA.352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> We are considering placing XP Pro on a PC and treating as an NAS (Network
> Attached Storage). We have been using the Adaptec Snap Server 4500 (uses
> the Linux kernel) appliance as an NAS. Is it a good idea to have XP Pro
> as an NAS as opposed to using Windows Server 2000? What are the pro's and
> con's?
>
> Marathoner
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

What has always confused me is the maximum ten connections for an XP system.
I could have sworn we have had more than 10 users connected to an XP
machine. I remember it was an issue with NT Workstations, but I have never
encountered that problem with our XP machine, on which more than 10 users
are probably connected.


Marathoner
"Dusko Savatovic" <savatovic@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23%23ae5dBTKHA.504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> 1. Maximum ten connections (users) concurrently.
> 2. XP is tuned to give priority to applications running in the foreground.
> Server is tuned to give priority to background processes.
>
> "marathoner" <rajk2000@msn.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:uSW4aLBTKHA.352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> We are considering placing XP Pro on a PC and treating as an NAS (Network
>> Attached Storage). We have been using the Adaptec Snap Server 4500 (uses
>> the Linux kernel) appliance as an NAS. Is it a good idea to have XP Pro
>> as an NAS as opposed to using Windows Server 2000? What are the pro's
>> and con's?
>>
>> Marathoner
>> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Nope, ten is the maximum. I ran a classroom setup, student computers copying
large files from instructor computer, all of them XP's. Even though I never
had more than five computers copying at the same time, when I crossed the
ten computer threshold (first group of five, then second group, then third
group), I had to go to the Instructor computer and kill old sessions in
Computer Manager.

"marathoner" <rajk2000@msn.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eo1nvqBTKHA.352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> What has always confused me is the maximum ten connections for an XP
> system. I could have sworn we have had more than 10 users connected to an
> XP machine. I remember it was an issue with NT Workstations, but I have
> never encountered that problem with our XP machine, on which more than 10
> users are probably connected.
>
>
> Marathoner
> "Dusko Savatovic" <savatovic@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23%23ae5dBTKHA.504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> 1. Maximum ten connections (users) concurrently.
>> 2. XP is tuned to give priority to applications running in the
>> foreground. Server is tuned to give priority to background processes.
>>
>> "marathoner" <rajk2000@msn.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:uSW4aLBTKHA.352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> We are considering placing XP Pro on a PC and treating as an NAS
>>> (Network Attached Storage). We have been using the Adaptec Snap Server
>>> 4500 (uses the Linux kernel) appliance as an NAS. Is it a good idea to
>>> have XP Pro as an NAS as opposed to using Windows Server 2000? What are
>>> the pro's and con's?
>>>
>>> Marathoner
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Per marathoner:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>We are considering placing XP Pro on a PC and treating as an NAS (Network
>Attached Storage). We have been using the Adaptec Snap Server 4500 (uses
>the Linux kernel) appliance as an NAS. Is it a good idea to have XP Pro as
>an NAS as opposed to using Windows Server 2000? What are the pro's and
>con's?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Could somebody comment on Windows Home Server as a third
alternative? Seems like the price is right: $99 last time I
looked.

Limited concurrent users?
--
PeteCresswell

 

"Dusko Savatovic" <savatovic@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uNDwaMDTKHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Nope, ten is the maximum. I ran a classroom setup, student computers
> copying large files from instructor computer, all of them XP's. Even
> though I never had more than five computers copying at the same time,
> when I crossed the ten computer threshold (first group of five, then
> second group, then third group), I had to go to the Instructor computer
> and kill old sessions in Computer Manager.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I totally agree. NT4 workstation, Windows 2000 workstation, XP, Vista or W7
laptop all have that limitation. I've ran classroom setups off my XP laptop
in the past, and the same thing... stops when trying to connect the 11th
machine. With the old MOC scripted setups, it wasn't a problem off a server
instructor machine, but when the setups changed to using VPCs around
2003-2004 not requiring a 'server' OS on the instructor machine, the
limitation became evident. I run my classes off my own laptop and copy the
courseware from it.

It is possible that in marathoner's case, that they weren't concurrent
connections, that is one had possibly disconnected, which *appears* as if
more than 10 are pulling data at one time.


--
Ace

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit among
responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your resolution.

Ace Fekay, MCT, MCITP Windows 2008, MCTS Exchange 2007, MCSE & MCSA 2003 &
2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
Microsoft Certified Trainer

For urgent issues, please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check
for regional support phone numbers.

 

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:h08ad5lukuukbedlqujdmg2t7b8tcjl5mu@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Per marathoner:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>We are considering placing XP Pro on a PC and treating as an NAS (Network
>>Attached Storage). We have been using the Adaptec Snap Server 4500 (uses
>>the Linux kernel) appliance as an NAS. Is it a good idea to have XP Pro
>>as
>>an NAS as opposed to using Windows Server 2000? What are the pro's and
>>con's?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Could somebody comment on Windows Home Server as a third
> alternative? Seems like the price is right: $99 last time I
> looked.
>
> Limited concurrent users?
> --
> PeteCresswell<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


Pete,

Windows Home Server has a 10 user concurrent connection limit. If you need a
machine to allow more than 10, I suggest to go to an actual server version
to meet your needs.

Keep in mind, this is for concurrent connections. This means if one person
is connected (UNC or mapped) to a drive, and also have a printer mapped to
the same machine, that constitutes 2 connections. They add up.

Limits on all the workstation OS "pro" versions (Ultimate, Business, etc)
are 10, and the Home verfsions are 5 .

Here's an old post explaining it:


btw - I WHS for $91.00 at New Egg.

Ace