Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

How many people can connect to my Mac on the network?

Aug 7, 2007 2:56AM PDT

I know Windows XP Home and Pro limits the connections to 5 and 10 connections respectively.

We are thinking of using my Mac as a kind of file server for our small business, but we have about 7 people who need to be constantly connected to it accessing and saving files. Is there a limit to how many people can be connected at one time?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Technically, you can connect lots
Aug 7, 2007 9:43AM PDT

of machines to your Mac - but just because you *can* does not mean you *should*. You didn't tell us what kind of Mac you use, what type of files the other users need to be accessing and saving, how large those files are, what type of network you have in the office, what computers the others are using... lots more questions.

If you have that many "people who need to be constantly connected to it accessing and saving files", then the performance of your computer - while YOU are on it - will degrade. This is not a Mac vs Windows item... this is a basic networking item. Lots of network IO means lots of work on the drive and on the CPU. Plus, the OS is not optimized to be a file server... XServe is...

http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjects/BizCustom.woa/6624009/wa/PSLID?mco=15D9D272&nclm=Xserve&wosid=3Q4NeSIzqOsd2afVtL8wnmK35OT

Rather than "using [your] Mac as a kind of file server", may I suggest that you either, (1) get a work group file server or (2) investigate the use of Network Attached Storage (NAS).

http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4913861;jsessionid=lPEwnsbyXkipWr+ZLFlRQw**.node1?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

In either case, I would strongly suggest implementing a strategy of doing proper daily back-ups (incremental and full - preferably to tape) and rotate the back-up media and all the other things that go with running a work-group server... Because if that 'puter falls over or the hard drive fails, the whole office is dead.

"Using [your] Mac as a kind of file server" may seem like an affordable way to what you want to do, but it isn't. I would not recommend it - especially in your stated "constantly connected to it accessing and saving files".

- Collapse -
Thanks. Specs.
Aug 9, 2007 1:19AM PDT

Thanks for the detailed response.

My mac specs:
- iMac 24"
- 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 2GB 667 MHz SDRAM
- 250GB HDD
- Network though Airport

Number of users connecting:
- 5-7

My machine is relatively powerful, so we thought it could handle the strain. We also purchased an external HDD that I will back up the files to every day, then store in a fire-box.

Is this still a bad idea? As you can see our office staff is not large. My original idea was to buy a Mac mini, install OS X server on it, and just let everyone run off of that. I like this idea because it can serve us contacts and calendars as well, but the cost is significantly higher. Is that a better idea?

- Collapse -
my opinion...
Aug 9, 2007 2:22AM PDT

A standalone machine is WAY better than sharing someone's workstation...

The Mac Mini is not a server, but that solution is preferred. I don't know if XServe will run on it...

Your connection through a wireless LAN is less than optimum as well - the shared server *should* be on a wired connection.

"Constant and numerous files" read/write activity you stated can get exciting in any environment - now you have added a wireless component and that just adds another layer of excitement... not to mention the potential security issues. Wired LAN (newer Macs have 10/100/1000 ethernet built in) is faster and secure. GigE hubs are cheap...
http://shop1.outpost.com/catreq/5694;jsessionid=3XZO0Yw9NXlcKJJ9slwc0w**.node1

The external HDD to do the back-up - then store in a firebox is OK... but I don't know if that means dtat will be in more than 1 or two places (i.e., on the desktop AND the back-up HDD or just on the HDD...). The more places that data is replicated the better off your recovery effort will be in the event of a catastrophe.

Have you looked at NAS at all? You could still use the MacMini for shared contact info/caledaring, etc... but the NAS would be the data file storage.

- Collapse -
It's a no go for now.
Aug 9, 2007 5:49AM PDT

My manager told me that the way we are doing it is the only way we can do it right now, but he isn't opposed to the mini/server solution. That means that the mini/server will have to wait until the company is more prepared financially.

I have seen and heard about NAS storage, however, we wanted to utilize some of the remote access options that are offered by a Mac. Do you know if any NAS systems offer this?

I will recommend that my Mac be hard-wired into the network instead of wirelessly connected. Thanks for the heads up. I hadn't thought of it.

- Collapse -
FYI
Aug 9, 2007 8:53AM PDT

Unless all the wireless devices on your network are running the new Wireless protocol, 802.11N, your network is being run at half the speed that it could be.
You sacrifice the convenience of wireless for the drop in network speed.

802.11g only has a speed of 54kb, on a good day, with a following wind and going downhill. The further you get from the base station, the slower the connection becomes.

Running all your machines as Wired machines mean that your network, assuming all later Mac models, would be running at 1000kb.

If you mixed older macs running 100kb, with new ones running 1000kb, the overall network speed would be much faster than your current wireless network.

P

- Collapse -
I agree with mrmacfixit...
Aug 9, 2007 9:17AM PDT

Ideally, ALL machines on the network will have better network response if they are wired (not wireless). Wireless is good for ease - no wires... but the tradeoff is network speed and throughput. Much slower on wireless than wired.

On the NAS item vs server and now - another new component - remote access...

Keep in mind that NAS is pretty much just a shared hard drive sitting out there on the LAN - which is what you originally asked for but you added the calendaring and contact list sharing... As a shared network hard drive a NAS set up is essentially the file server storage *only* portion of what you are looking for.

Because calendaring and contact list sharing actually require applications to run, then a cpu and a bit of storage is needed - with an operating system. It *might* be possible to have the database with the calendar and contact info out there on the NAS with the end-user running whatever applications would be need to get to that information - but I have no recommendations on what allows multiple simultaneous uses accessing the same data files at the same time without causing record locks and other database collisions - I suppose some sort of web application might do the trick, but I am not in that environment, so I don't know what is out there to even consider before recommending.

Remote access typically allows the remote device to get connected to a LAN/WAN. Sometimes via VPN, sometimes another way. But this is accomplished by some sort of network appliance (like a Nortel Contivity box). You need to get through the office router, first. Once that LAN/WAN access is allowed, it is up to the machines - nodes - on the LAN/WAN to be configured for whatever access they want to allow. So... what are you thinking of for remote access that Macs allow for? This is independent of the file server and calendaring and contact list sharing features you are looking for...

Though I recall that there is a BBS/server application called FirstClass from SoftArc that might do what you need - and more... And, as I recall, it is not cheap, but it is solid - and clients are cross-platform or web-accessible... and it is pretty secure... and has been around for many years and matured over that long time...

- Collapse -
FTP
Aug 10, 2007 2:26AM PDT

OS X has FTP access capabilities built in. We are utilizing another app to run the FTP at this point though, because we found OS X's options to be too slim. This gives us the remote access we need. I have already set up the router to work with it.

Technically, I believe I could run an LDAP Contact and WebDAV Calendar server from my computer, but the list of running programs and resources being used by my computer is getting too big for me. I need to leave some for my work to be done as well.

- Collapse -
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but isn't there an easier answer?
Aug 17, 2007 10:42AM PDT

You said your network includes Airport. The Airport base station has a USB port specifically for sharing a printer or network drive.

Couldn't you keep the frequently accessed and shared files on the network drive? That's how we do it at home, with everyone able to access the iTunes library, photos, and lots of documents. XP PC's and Macs share these files equally.

If I'm missing the complicating details, forgive my error.

bob