Limit to num of shares?

[John E. Malmberg]

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
in
> > fact no limit (other than share points). BTW, after you do a 'Map
network
> > drive' to Z how do you then map the next share? (that would appear to
limit
> > 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
Convention.

\\SERVER\share\directory\path\file.exe

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

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.

-John
wb8tyw at qsl.network