Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (
More info?)
Hi cquirke,
the setting I'm operating in is a campus network at Princeton University. Logging on to the Windows domain gives a computer access to all those Windows computers on the network which have sharing enabled. The particular workgroup that contains so many computers is the workgroup "PRINCETON", since many users configure their computers to be a part of this workgroup. There are some servers too, but mostly workstations.
Anyway, the point is that when I access this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can currently see 2106 computers, and list cuts off somewhere at the letter "H". The question is why does Windows Explorer show only the first ~2100 computers *alphabetically*? (and yes, doing a search or using the \\computer syntax will let me do what I want, but still I'd like to figure out if this is a bug/limitation of Windows 98, or if it's something else)
Thanks,
Ivan
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message news:fge5719td920072bjp9ijiblvg1lc5s7d2@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:37:04 -0400, Ivan Bútora <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> >I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the
> >network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so. When
> >I browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see anywhere
> >between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The numbers keep
> >changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.)
>
> Let's hope these are not all offering full shares of all of C:\, or
> any part of the startup axis. Else when any one of those 5000 PCs is
> infected, chances are all the others will be too.
>
> In such large installations, it's unlikely that the sysadmins would do
> the right thing, i.e. take each PC off the LAN and formally clean it.
> They will prolly mess around with network cleaning tools, so the
> malware will likely flit from one PC to the other, forever.
>
> >I have not been able to find any article in the knowledge base or
> >elsewhere that would describe some limitation in this regard.
>
> The limitations are not so much on your side, as on the PCs you are
> trying to access. Windows comes in server and non-server versions,
> and all non-server versions of Windows will limit the number of
> systems that are allowed to access them at the same time:
> - 5: WinME, XP Home
> - 10: Win95xx, Win98xx, NT Workstation, Win2000 Pro, XP Pro
>
> If you have 5000 workstations all banging away at each other via
> peer-to-peer file sharing - an unlikely scenario in a
> professionally-administered LAN, as 5000 PCs should be - then the
> chances are that at any given moment, a large number of these may have
> "too many" systems trying to access them. I'd expect you to be able
> to see them, but not be allowed access.
>
> What the system can see via File and Print Sharing is always likely to
> be a bit wobbly. One could design the system to be constantly aware
> of PCs as they come and go (they "come" when switched on and "go" when
> shutdown), but the overhead (especially with 5000 boxen) would leave
> your PC with little time to do anything else, and the network would be
> saturated with "hello I'm here" keep-alive traffic.
>
> So in reality, the "discovery" of systems is a bit lethargic, and
> there seems to be no way to force a refresh of who'd who in the zoo
> (it would be exploited as a DoS, if such facility existed).
>
> If this is the problem, then using Search or Find or explicit network
> path syntax should find the systems that Explorer doesn't list.
>
> >So is this a limitation, or possibly a bug? What could be done to
> >resolve the problem?
>
> As above. Are these 5000 systems servers, or workstations? It seems
> like a very odd way to run a network if they're workstations.
>
>
>
> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery:
http://cquirke.blogspot.com
> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram