Limit to num of shares?

John E. Malmberg wb8tyw at
Thu Jun 1 19:06:07 GMT 2000

Chris Tooley <ctooley at joslyn.organization> wrote:

> There is in fact a maximum (AFAIK) of 23 mapped shares (as you aren't
allowed to
> map to A: B: or C: (also AFAIK), which I've found to be a problem.

B: is mappable.  As long as you do not have a physical drive or partition on
a drive letter you can map it.

There used to be some characters beyond Z: that could be mapped, just not
from the User Interfaces provided.  I do not know if that is still the case.

> However, I've got 13 things mounted from an NT WS
> box on about 30 9x machines so I don't think that the 10
> connection limit is right either.

Now that you have admitted it, they may come looking.

> Ron Alexander wrote:
> >
> > 2. The KB article that discusses the 10 connection limit is Q122920.

As I understand it, it applies to separate workstations.  Multiple
"connections" from one workstation count only as one.  But again, I am not a
lawyer, and have never played one on TV either.

I do not know if enforcement is a hard limit, a warning somewhere, or just
the honor system.

> > I am still confused, but my test would appear to confirm that there is
> > fact no limit (other than share points). BTW, after you do a 'Map
> > drive' to Z how do you then map the next share? (that would appear to
> > you to 26 less real drives)

You do not need to map share points to use them.

Most Windows programs now a days will use what is call Uniform Naming


There are a few old programs out there that must have a drive letter mapped

So the only real limit on how many shares you can simultaneously connect to
from the client is only limited by the client's resources.

wb8tyw at

More information about the samba-technical mailing list