XP 10 Computer Network Limit

[Top Hat]

Apparently there is a a limit of 10 computers that can connect/Map network drives to an XP machine.

We've now reached this limit.

So what do we do, what do we need to store our databases and shared files

Currently we just use a fast PC.

Do we need a server? or something else, should I get someone in to set it up or is it easy, any advice appreciated.

[Interacssltd]

hi

Yes a server is the way to go. This will enable you to share your files, resources and equipment, such as Internet access, printers.

If you need more help or a price send me a message.

[KM-Tiger]

For 10 or so client PC's a server would not need a particularly high spec. The essential difference with a server is the software it runs that can deal with network facilities, control access permissions, handle and share email etc. It's usually the case that a server makes effective backup easier too.

To set things up properly is not trivial, and unless you are interested to learn you might be well advised to get someone else to do it.

One frequent stumbling block with Windows XP is that the version matters. It's only XP Professional (and not XP Home) that can take full advantage of logging onto a server.

[CrispyUK]

If it's just somewhere to store and share files from then you might be able to fulfill your requirements using a NAS (network attached storage) box such as the Buffalo LinkStations. This should work out cheaper than a server solution in terms of initial cost and ongoing running/power costs.

However there may be other benefits for you going to a server based solution if your network is at 10+ computers so I'd evaluate both options :)

[Top Hat]

One frequent stumbling block with Windows XP is that the version matters. It's only XP Professional (and not XP Home) that can take full advantage of logging onto a server.

Nuts, I think some of the PC are XP home.

[KM-Tiger]

Nuts, I think some of the PC are XP home.

Not the end of the world. The XP Home PC's would still be able to access Windows shares on the server, but would not be able to use a single 'domain login' for everything.

[Capella ITA]

If it's just somewhere to store and share files from then you might be able to fulfill your requirements using a NAS (network attached storage) box such as the Buffalo LinkStations. This should work out cheaper than a server solution in terms of initial cost and ongoing running/power costs.

However there may be other benefits for you going to a server based solution if your network is at 10+ computers so I'd evaluate both options :)


Yes, I have to agree here. NAS is a viable solution if you only need to share document and MS Access(?) database files. One good point is that the NAS, should you go that route, is not necessarily redundant should you need to install a server at a later date as your company grows. This also means that the cost, at least some of it, can be subtracted from the server hardware.

However, if you do decide to go this route, buy the NAS from a specialist that is prepared to install and configure it for you as there are a number of items that need to be configured correctly, OP locks, share permissons and UPS protection for starters.

[leemason]

Another vote for NAS. It would be the cheapest solution and if you are only sharing files and have no need of server based applications (like MS-Exchange) the it would be ideal and would give pretty decent performance as well. Something like this http://www.thecus.com/products_over.php?cid=12&pid=48&set_language=english would be ideal. It provides RAID 5 for resilience against disk failures has pretty good performance and is even wireless if you need that.

But also remember that even though you might have RAID storage backups are still important for critical business data: these should be held securely offsite in case of a major disaster (fire, theft, flood, etc).

[Top Hat]

Well i've got a file server, Windows Server 2008.

Do I need Anti Virus? Presumably yes

Any recomendations? I'm inclined to use AVG as thats what we use on all the PCs

[KM-Tiger]

I'm inclined to use AVG as thats what we use on all the PCs

I would take the opportunity to install a different virus checker on the server, particularly to scan email.

I have seen a virus get past one virus checker, I've never seen a virus get past two.

Owners of Open Source servers get this free with Clamav.

[computer storm]

I would look at forefront if you are using server 2008, as this uses upto 4 scanning engines to check for viruses.
Very good, but also McAfee is a good server antivirus, not that keen on symantec as it is very resource hungry.

[keithzala]

use zone alarm as your firewall and anti spyware they are the most popular now a days and for server use symantec only. without firewall none of your anti virus can be helpful.

Thanks

[adxba]

Am I right in saying you've said you already have a Server 2008 machine? If so, why can't the systems on the XP box be moved to the server? Bearing in mind that if its just a File server, it won't be getting hit hard.

If this isn't an option, and you are happy with the hardware of the XP box, I'd suggest installing Server 2003 / 2008 on to the XP box.

In terms of Anti Virus, obviously make sure your not using the FREE version of AVG because this is for personal use only, in terms of file server and client PCs we usually recommend ESET (NOD32), not resource hungry and the up there with the best in catchment rates.

Hope this helps.