1 2 Previous Next 11 Replies Latest reply on Aug 8, 2012 6:16 AM by SafeBoot

    Binding Multiple user in one machine.

    laba_m

      Dear All,

       

      Kindly please let me know that how many users can be added in one machine which EEPC 5.2.8 rolled out machine, I am trying to bind 50 safeboot user name in one machine, will it give any issue?

       

      Regards,

      Bala

        • 1. Re: Binding Multiple user in one machine.

          thousands can be assigned if you increase the SBFS space as per the documentation - 50 won't be a problem with the standard settings though. I think out of the box it tops out at a few hundred.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Binding Multiple user in one machine.

            Okay, we are setting up machine with more the 2.000 AD user in sync. But we are also encountering issues randomly: It takes up to 30 min between PBA and windows login.

             

            It's impossible for us to detect why it happens. If user A gets trouble on PC1 he get no trouble while login into PC2 (same type of hardware, same setup of OS). User B (same OU) don't get trouble on PC1 and 2.

             

            While reducing user count is no option, is there any hint, tip or tool that helps to fix this issue? Or is there a limit  of user accounts not technical but regarding performance aspect?

             

            TIA.

            • 3. Re: Binding Multiple user in one machine.

              2000?!? - Do you really have that many people using the machine, or are you just not knowing who does?

               

              Yes, 2000 is going to take a long time to sync, and of course, password changes get replicated between machines so that will take longer as well. If the user A locks themselves out of machine A, then another user logs into machine A, then user A will get (eventually) locked out of all machines as their "token" gets replicated about.

               

              this is what you want in a network connected architecture, but may not be what the user expects.

               

              Why can't you use the "add local domain users" option to add all the users who have ever used the machine? Is it realistic for any user to be able to log in anywhere any time?  If it is, then you have to accept the traffic and delays, as somehow that information needs to be passed aroud between machines

              • 4. Re: Binding Multiple user in one machine.

                Thank you for quick responding.

                 


                2000?!? - Do you really have that many people using the machine, or are you just not knowing who does?

                It's only a requirement that any people of an AD OU and it's sub OUs should have access to a machine without additional administration. It shoud avoid administrative overflow or delay.

                 

                Yes, 2000 is going to take a long time to sync, and of course, password changes get replicated between machines so that will take longer as well. If the user A locks themselves out of machine A, then another user logs into machine A, then user A will get (eventually) locked out of all machines as their "token" gets replicated about.

                Our problem ist not long sync time. PBA takes that long and it's only an issue by 3 of about 200 users. That means that PBA time of 197 user takes no more than a second, while PBA time of 3 takes between 10 and 30 minutes.

                 

                So this problem occours before Windows is started (McAfee PBA screen is still visible), so it seemed it's not a problem of sync or replication.

                 

                I would like to know what's going on right after PBA and how this delay can be fixed  or avoid (sort of defragmentation of SBFS, reindexing etc.)

                 

                Nachricht geändert durch neo4 on 07.08.12 07:37:20 CDT
                • 5. Re: Binding Multiple user in one machine.

                  Nothing you can do really - remove those three users and add them back? Check the client log to make sure there's no file system errors reported maybe.

                   

                  Yes it sounds strange that only a few are affected - the performance should be the same for everyone. There's a much greater opportunity for issues though with a huge user population, simply because the network can get unplugged during the sync....

                  • 6. Re: Binding Multiple user in one machine.

                    Thank you, Simon.

                     

                    Nothing you can do really - remove those three users and add them back?

                    The user were maintained by group templates - it simply makes sense by those huge number, so I can see no way for removing special user accounts only.

                     

                    Yes it sounds strange that only a few are affected - the performance should be the same for everyone. There's a much greater opportunity for issues though with a huge user population, simply because the network can get unplugged during the sync....

                    Well, there are always hints for only sync less then 20 or 50 or [place your number here] users but this doesn't really fit our requirements. While it's acceptable that an issue occurs in real life there must be a proved way for fixing it. In an enterprise environment an admin tool for repairing broken cache of user accounts on client side would be more then helpful. At least I would expect it

                     

                    Maybe you can foward this issue to your internal R&D folks. Thanks again.

                     

                    --

                    Andreas

                    • 7. Re: Binding Multiple user in one machine.

                      later versions do have built in features to self-repair SBFS/PBFS etc - when you upgrade you'll get that kind of technology.

                      • 8. Re: Binding Multiple user in one machine.

                        Is there a way to apply this repairing feature of later versions to former one?

                         

                        It's no problem to buy a new version or purchase required tools but upgrade all of our machines is not possible.

                         

                        Nachricht geändert durch neo4 on 08.08.12 05:59:16 CDT
                        • 9. Re: Binding Multiple user in one machine.

                          Sorry no, but even if it was, you'd have to apply it to all the machines, which would be much the same as an upgrade anyway :-)

                          1 2 Previous Next