Limit to num of shares?
John E. Malmberg
wb8tyw at qsl.net
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
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
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list