"Server" limiting number of connections?

[DeusxMac]

In our office, we've dedicated an older MacPro (Intel) on our Ethernet network to act as a shared server for about 30 Mac users in our otherwise all-PC office.
No special settings other than making one of its internal 1TB drives fully open for sharing.

However, periodically different folks are getting an error message when they try to connect which says "Connection failed. This file server will not allow any additional users to log on. Please try to connect again later."

Is there some limit to how many of our Macs can connect at one time? Are PCs on the network somehow screwing things up? Or...?

TIA

[clay]

yes, I think with plain vanilla (i.e. Consumer version of Mac OS X, like Mac OS 10.5 Leopard or 10.6 Snow Leopard) installs of Mac OS X, there's a limit of 10 (?) concurrent connections. You'd need to purchase a copy of Mac OS X unlimited server to enjoy the benefits of unlimited simultaneous connected users.

[hal]

"Please try to connect again later"

that SO microsoft

[Jack D.]

clay wrote:
yes, I think with plain vanilla (i.e. Consumer version of Mac OS X, like Mac OS 10.5 Leopard or 10.6 Snow Leopard) installs of Mac OS X, there's a limit of 10 (?) concurrent connections. You'd need to purchase a copy of Mac OS X unlimited server to enjoy the benefits of unlimited simultaneous connected users.

I was looking this up just the other night and Mac Help in 10.5.8 states that up to 10 users may connect at one time, for more than 10 they recommend OSX Server.

[C(-)ris]

10 user limit, as previously stated. Pick up a copy of Snow Leopard Unlimited.

[DeusxMac]

C(-)ris wrote:
Pick up a copy of Snow Leopard Unlimited.

Thanks for all the info folks.
Unfortunately $499+ doesn't really qualify as a "pick up" in my personal lexicon; it's more of a "major expenditure." :terror:

[Paul F.]

For an office of 30 Mac users (and PC users too, if you set up the SMB service), a $499 OS X Server package is WELL worth it.
That breaks down to, what, $16 per user?

And with the simple File Serving, you get Open Directory, DNS, FTP, Calendar, WebDav, Web server, Software Update Server, and a dozen more services you COULD set up later if you wanted to...
It's worth it.
I understand that $499 is not "pocket change" (boy, do I!) but it's a case worth making to whoever signs the Purchase Orders in your office.

[clay]

could you find an older copy of leopard (10.5) server on ebay or somewhere? Probably could get an unlimited version for $100-$250, rather than $500 for the current version. Or...do you have an academic discount (or know someone that does)?

Any of those server packages will serve files just fine. If you have more significant needs, you may need a newer version, but 10.5 should do just fine for you.

[silvarios]

I agree with C(-)ris and Paul F. $500 is nothing in the context of 30 users (at least). How little are the employees making that sitting idle instead of working (even if only for 5 minutes per employee per day) is cheaper than $500?


Nathan

[onthedownlow]

The other nice thing about Server is that you'll be able to easily monitor/audit the logs to see who is accessing what/when/modifications/etc. very simply at any given time.