Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Remote Dektop Connection Timeout

Last response: in Networking
Share
February 24, 2013 9:26:31 PM

Just posted this in the Vista section, but probably belongs here.....


I am setting up a headless XP Pro machine as a music server and intend to control it by Remote Desktop from a Vista Home Premium laptop. I've figured out most of the glitches in how to wake the machine from hibernate, how to return the session to the console etc., but one annoyance remains. When I initiate the connection request on the laptop it wakes up the server, but doesn't wait long enough, as I get a "cannot connect" mesage. If I connect again, it works. I spent half a day googling to try to find out what controls this timeout value and if i can change it, but struck out. Can anybody help?

Thanks.
February 25, 2013 3:09:57 PM

How is the WOL request associated w/ RDP? I don't use RDP, so maybe I'm unaware of it, but it sounds as if your WOL request is part of the RDP connection process. In all the cases I've used WOL, it was a separate process, and I simply waited a couple mins for it to complete before attempting the remote desktop session.

I suppose one solution would be to use standby rather than hibernation (although I know the former can sometimes be problematic, such as when it awakes unexpectedly).
m
0
l
February 25, 2013 9:24:56 PM

As I understand it, RDP uses a wake up frame which does the same thing as a magic packet if your NIC supports it, which mine obviously does. I thought of just sending the machine into standby, but as you say, it wakes up seemingly randomly for reasons I cannot fathom. If I can't get over my laziness to run the RDP connect twice, I may try to figure out a bat file to send a magic packet, wait a few seconds and do the connect. Right now I've taken a step backwards and I'm trying to figure out why the XP machine doesn't always hibernate................
m
0
l
February 25, 2013 11:06:34 PM

You learn something new every day. Didn't know RDP did that, although you'd think it would be equally smart enough to wait a sufficient amount of time (this is Windows after all :sarcastic:  ). Kind of stupid to support WOL implicitly, then quit prematurely.
m
0
l
!