File accessability for multiple users

I am designing a we application in which each and every updation done by the users will be written in a text file. I have a question that since this is a web based application there will be multiple users accessing the application. And when many users are trying to update a record then they will be accessing the same file.i.e., writing into the same file at the same time and that will be a problem... Please suggest me a solution for this issue.... Some people suggested to use synchronized methods for writing and some suggested like writing into a temporary file and then once the user has finished updating we have to write from the temporary file to the main text file. So the main file is not directly updated by the users..
Please suggest me if you have any new ideas...Thanks in advance..

Hi Thanks for your explanation...Since I am new to this field i have a doubt. Could you please explain it.
Question:
Will Session affect this logic?
Consider a user A is performing the update action at location 1 and a user B is performing another update action at location 2. My doubt here is will both the updated records will be present in the same Vector even if the users closes the session? Because what if the user closes the application before the "WorkerThread" runs method "performNextUpdate()". And also will the thread start running from the moment the user logs into the application for every 25ms.
Sorry if it is a silly question or if you dont understand it properly.

Similar Messages

ITunes access for multiple users on the same Apple

I think I'm really done myself in for the fist time with my iMac. I have decided instead of sharing a single log-in with my girlfriend, to get her her own. This is working out great, but I'm come to a halt in trying to get her access to our music on iTunes. I read the article on the Apple Support website that clearly explains how to do this, I also read Kay and Bert's message thread which I thought would be of help to no avail.
I've copied my iTunes folder into user/shared then opened iTunes/preferences and connected iTunes the path to the new location. Done... but I can't see any of my music!! ... and I can't even see the music under my log-in. However, I can clearly see the files there in the user/shared folder. I'm starting to feel those "windows" days before I found Apple. Please help!
iMac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6) iLife 06

I got my answers looking at another post. This individual was able to hit up a Genious Bar, something I had tried to schedule on the internet but was denied because I don't have the care plan. Here is the thread.
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=2538248#2538248
Again, the Apple Discussion has saved the day.

How to limit file access for different users in 10.7.4 Server

We had everything working perfectly with an earlier version of Lion Server. The update to 10.7.3, or 4, seems to have opened access to all files for all users. Much to our surprise, this wide-open access started without warning.
- We have an external drive that contains all of the company's archives
- We had set access for one employee to get to the files he needs, and different access for another employee. Neither saw sharepoints outside of their access settings.
After an update, each employee can see and log in to all sharepoints. There doesn't seem to be a way to limit access for each employee now. I can set 'read' access for one employee, but it doesn't stop the other employee from accessing that sharepoint/folder.
Is there some new way to go about this? Or is something simply broken with the current release?

That is good to know. If the file share is seeing the drive and ignoring its permissions, that is why everyone can see everything. I have found, in Lion Server, that it is best to get the permissions set before turning on File Sharing. I don't know if you have the luxury of turning the file share off for a little while, but I would unshare the drive and see if the issue persists if you plug the external drive into another machine. The settings for permissions are set on the file or folder itself, so the issue should follow you to the other machine.
Again, if you can, I would unshare the drive and reshare it with the permissions that you want and turn file sharing back on. However, if you can get the drive to respect permissions rather than ignoring them, I think it will save you a lot of work.

No internet access for multiple users

I have tried setting up an account for the kids but it will not display Safari. I have tried both limited and unlimited access options but there is a question mark where Safari should be in the dock. Any ideas? thanks
Message was edited by: 911golfer

The icons in the doc are really shortcuts/aliases to the real program or file.
The "?" means the system cannot find the target file.
Typically happens if the target file has been renamed or moved.
In the kid account, drag the "?" from the Dock to the desktop. It will disappear in a puff of smoke.
Verify Safari is not running.
Open the Applications folder.
Locate Safari.
Drag the Safari icon to the dock.
If security on the kid account is set to allow them to modify the Dock, the Safari icon should stay in the dock where ever you placed it.
If security is set to disallow dock modification, it will not allow you to put the icon thin the dock.

Non-profit looking to purchase creative suite for multiple users

Hi! I am representing a non-profit who is interested in purchasing the creative suite to be accessed for multiple users. Can someone direct me with how to do that? Thanks.Non-profit looking to purchase

Start here:
Adobe nonprofit eligibility qualifications| Adobe Volume Licensing

The Windows SMB feature has file locking if multiple users are accessing the same file. Does Snow Leopard Server File Sharing (AFP) provide similar features?

The Windows SMB feature has file locking if multiple users are accessing the same file. Does File Sharing (AFP) on Snow Leopard Server provide similar services?

Were you ever able to solve this problem. I'm having similar issues since upgrading to snow leopard. Four macs connect to a Windows Server 2003 for shared files. Each user has full permissions & when we "get info" it shows read & write permissions. Two of the computers were running 10.4, two were running 10.5. Everything worked properly until upgrading to snow leopard. Some files let me copy, move, delete. Others either just hang up or we get a "no permission" error. Also getting a "pdf is in use" error, even when the file/folder doesn't contain a pdf. We had our IT rep check the server who said everything is in working order. They don't represent macs any longer but feel that it's a mac problem. I would have to agree since this problem only started after the upgrade, and the one machine that was not upgraded (still running 10.5.8) is not dealing with these problems.
Lastly, I would install 10.5 back on all of the computers if I could, but the leopard disk that came with one of the computers wouldn't work with the 2 machines running 10.4 and I didn't see it available at the apple store. I'll buy it if it's still available, but why wouldn't the disks that I have work?
Thanks for any help

File sharing across multiple user accounts on the same machine

Hello,
I try to figure out how multiple users (my wife and I) on the same mac can have equal access to files on the local drive without granting that access to all users on that machine or even the rest of the world.
My research sofar hasn't come up with a satisfying solution. Here are the solutions that I am looking at:
1. Enable a permission system that ensures access to both users in all cases (file/directory creation, copy and move).
I only found a suitable solution for creating and copying files/directories but not for moving them.
See the following articles for reference:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/20787617#20787617 Setting up a shared structure that works e.g. for iPhoto Library but not for moving files to and from
https://discussions.apple.com/message/4005647#4005647 Helpful information on POSIX Permissions, ACL's an Permission inheritance
This would be my first choice if I can get around the problem of moving files...
2. Disk Image
Create a disk image which ignores persmissions and set permissions for the file that contains the image instead.
Read this article to get further details: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1198
This solution will work but has a few disadvatages:
There's no mutual access from multiple user accounts since an image may only be mounted by one user at a time.
One has to create a startup script that mounts the image upon login which would create a first come first serve for access to the image content.
3. Using a file sharing protocol (e.g. afp or smb) locally.
The idea behind it is to have a server providing the files mutually to multiple users one the same machine. At them moment this seems to be the most promising approach to me.
Unfortunately I can get acces from another machine but not from the same machine. Has anyone ever tried to access the file sharing (afp or smb) from the same machine on which the server is located?
Has anyone got some helpful hints for me?
Thanks in advance.

Sorry, but you didn't specify details, and it was worth checking whether or not you had overlooked this approach.
The problem you're having (as I suppose you already know) is that any new disk item inherits the permissions of the folder it is originally created in in. These permissions (sensibly enough) need owner or administrator permission to change once they've been established; that will happen when you copy a file to a new location (because that's essentially creating a new file) but not when you move it. any of the following would work:
changing the permissions on newly created files for both users so that they all explicitly give r/w access to a particular group.
writing a droplet that would change the permissions of files dropped on it and move them programmatically to the shared folder
set up a folder action or launchd job that would watch the shared folder and automatically convert permissions on files placed in it.
The last would be the approach I would take, but... which appeals to you?

How to use the same POWL query for multiple users

Hello,
I have defined a POWL query which executes properly. But if I map the same POWL query to 2 portal users and the 2 portal users try to access the same page simultaneously then it gives an error message to one of the users that
"Query 'ABC' is already open in another session."
where 'ABC' is the query name.
Can you please tell me how to use the same POWL query for multiple users ?
A fast reply would be highly appreciated.
Thanks and Regards,
Sandhya

Batch processing usually involves using actions you have recorded. In Action you can insert Path that can be used during processing documents. Path have some size so you may want to only process document that have the same size. Look in the Actions Palette fly-out menu for insert path. It inserts|records the current document work path into the action being worked on and when the action is played it inserts the path into the document as the current work path..

File sharing with multiple users on one Mac

I have two Macs, both of which ca seen each other across the network. My question regards file sharing with multiple users on the same computer. When file sharing, are the files from all users available across the network, or just those of the user presently logged in? The issue is that I am trying to access files from a user who isn't currently logged in, but another user on that computer is. I need to get into that person's documents, but I don't see a way to navigate to their documents folder.

Right, I got that. But the computer is in constant use by User A, while I need access to User B's files. I could need access at anytime, and it would be a pain to make User A log off and log in as User B everytime. I was just wondering if there is anyway to access User B's files in this situation, without logging User B in.

How to provide access to multiple users connected to a Dumb switch? (multi-auth/multi-domain)

Good morning everybody,
I am writing on behalf of not being able to implement a desired outcome in our company network. In fact the situation is as follows:
What I want to do is to be able to authenticate users (802.1x authentication) in our company radius server and authorize them access by having a dynamic VLAN assignment in a multi-user environment on one and the same port of a Cisco 2960 switch. So far, the authentication and authorization has been working completely smoothly (there are no problems with itself). The concept involves the configuration of both DATA and VOICE VLANs as I there is also phone authentication implemented. In order to simulate this environment I introduce a Dumb switch connected to my Cisco 2960 Catalyst.
What I have successfully managed to get to work so far is this:
1) On one switch port I have tried the “authentication host-mode multi-domain” and it worked perfectly for a PC behind a telephone, or with one PC connected to a the dumb switch + the telephone connected to another port of the dumb switch. Logically it is the same situation as there is a separation in two domains – DATA and VOICE. Bellow is an output from show authentication sessions for this scenario.
Interface MAC Address Method Domain Status Session ID
Fa0/23 0021.9b62.b79b dot1x DATA Authz Success C0A8FF69000000F3008E (user1)
Fa0/23 0015.655c.b912 dot1x VOICE Authz Success C0A8FF69000000F9009F (phone)
2) On the other hand, when I try the same scenario with the “authentication host-mode multi-auth”, the switch still separates the traffic in two domains and is able to authenticate all users, AS LONG AS they are in the same VLAN.
show authentication sessions:
Interface MAC Address Method Domain Status Session ID
Fa0/23 0021.9b62.b79b dot1x DATA Authz Success C0A8FF69000000F3008E (user1)
Fa0/23 b888.e3eb.ebac dot1x DATA Authz Success C0A8FF69000000F8008C (user2)
Fa0/23 0015.655c.b912 dot1x VOICE Authz Success C0A8FF69000000F9009F (phone)
However, I cannot succeed authentication of many users from DIFFERENT VLANs, neither in multi-auth nor in multi-domain modes.
What I want to get is an output like this:
Interface MAC Address Method Domain Status Session ID
Fa0/23 0021.9b62.b79b dot1x DATA Authz Success C0A8FF69000000F3008E (user1)
Fa0/23 b888.e3eb.ebac dot1x DATA Authz Success C0A8FF69000000F8008C (user2)
Fa0/23 0015.655c.b912 dot1x VOICE Authz Success C0A8FF69000000F9009F (phone)
I want the switch to authenticate the users anytime they connect to itself and for them to have an instant access to the network. (I tell this because I tried scenario 1) with multi-domain mode and authentication violation replace, and it worked but, two users never had access to the “Internet” simultaneously!!!
The configuration of the interface connected to the Dumb switch is as follows.
interface FastEthernet0/x
description Connection to DUMBswitch
switchport mode access
switchport voice vlan XXX
switchport port-security maximum 10
switchport port-security
switchport port-security violation protect
authentication host-mode multi-auth
authentication priority dot1x
authentication port-control auto
authentication timer reauthenticate 4000
authentication violation replace
dot1x pae authenticator
dot1x timeout tx-period 10
spanning-tree portfast
The way I see it is explained in the following steps:
- PC1 connects to the Dumb switch. This causes the Cisco switch to authenticate user1. This creates an auth. session with its MAC address linked to a domain DATA.
- When PC2 connects to the Dumb switch, this causes the violation replace which replaces the recent authenticated MAC address with the MAC of PC2. I would like it once authenticated to appear in the authentication sessions with a link to a new DATA domain linked to the VLAN assigned from the RADIUS server.
Is this possible? I think (in theory) this is the only way to provide authenticated access to multiple users connecting through Dumb switch to the network.
Has anybody ever succeeded in such a configuration example and if yes, I would be love to get some help in doing so?
Thank you
Stoimen Hristov

Hi Stoimen,
I have done a setup similar to yours with the only exception being VLAN assignment. When I used dACLs only, it makes things somewhat easier as the VLAN no longer matters. Remember that the switchport is in access mode and will only allow a single VLAN across it (with the exception of the voice VLAN). I think that is the real cause of your problem.
From what I can see, you have 2 options available to you:
1) Use dACLs instead of VLAN assignment. This means that an access list will be downloaded from the radius server straight to the authenticated user's session. I have tested this and it works perfectly. Just Google Cisco IBNS quick reference guide and look for the section that deals with Low Impact mode.
2) Get rid of the dumb switches and use managed switches throughout your network. Dumb switches will always be a point of weakness in your network because they have no intelligence to do advanced security features like port security, 802.1x, DHCP snooping, etc.
Hopefully someone else will chime in with another option.
Xavier

Setting up accounts for multiple users

Suggestions for allowing multiple users to access one account to avoid having to reimburse folks for every download on their work iPads?

short answer, no. Mail.app does not have support within itself for multiple user accounts. It displays the messages from the mailboxes of the user that is currently logged in. so if you want multiple people to read their mail on the same mac without being able to read other users' mail, you will need to set up multiple user accounts. alternatively, use another client. i think thunderbird supports multiple mail accounts under the same user account. hope this helps.

Is there a way for multiple users to connect to my home sharing with their iOS device to select music to stream to my A/V receiver jukebox style?

I have an A/V receiver that I can connect to and select music to stream over my network but I want to know if I have a party if it's possible for multiple users to have access on their own devices to my home shared music and select music to play like a jukebox.

I almost forgot that using folders can allow each folder to contain a song. I also recall touch tracks or one key play...

How can I create a folders of apps for multiple users?

I use several iPads with my students and would like to set up a folder for each student. I want to place "an alias" of each app the student uses in their folder. On my Mac, I can "make alias" and place aliases in seperate folders. How can I do that on my iPad? Thanks!

You can drag one app on top of another and make a folder. However the limit to this is, for your situation, there can be no sharing of apps....the app Fred can only be in one folder because it's only on the device once. (so it may not work for what you need)
and I cannot recall if you can edit the name of the folder.
Unfortunately, for situations like yours, the iPad was created to be a single user device, so there's really not support for multiple users or multiple levels of access.

How to restrict the access of "InPlaceRecordsListSettings.aspx" and "InPlaceRecordsSettings.aspx" pages for some users and allow the access for some users?

I have a requirement to restrict the access of "InPlaceRecordsListSettings.aspx" and "InPlaceRecordsSettings.aspx" pages for some of the users and allow the access for some of the users.
I have applied the below code on the web.config file but this modification impacting only on the web application level not on the site collection and sub site level.
<location path="_layouts/15/InPlaceRecordsSettings.aspx">
    <system.web>
      <authorization>
        <deny users="*" />
      </authorization>
    </system.web>
</location>
<location path="_layouts/15/InPlaceRecordsListSettings.aspx">
    <system.web>
      <authorization>
        <deny users="*" />
      </authorization>
    </system.web>
</location>
When I tried the access on
:<portno>/sites/<scname>/_layouts/15/InPlaceRecordsSettings.aspx">http://<servername>:<portno>/sites/<scname>/_layouts/15/InPlaceRecordsSettings.aspx page allowed the access for all users.
Please suggest the possible solution to restrict the access of "InPlaceRecordsListSettings.aspx" and "InPlaceRecordsSettings.aspx" pages on SharePoint2013.
Thanks
Ramasubbu

You can't do it from OOTB.
_layout folder is accessible to the users if they have read access in any of the site even subsite.
You can modify *.aspx file, add your custom control which will check user.
[custom.development]

After installing Mountain Lion, why is there Yahoo access for one user but not another?--both are administrators.

After installing Mountain Lion, why is there Yahoo access for one user but not another?--both are administrators.

We've had several instances where we have had to run chkdsk on arrays with over 1m files. Average completion time is approximately 72 hours. The maximum downtime window they have available is the 64 hour weekend window. File sizes and number of files were
much smaller then than they are now.
The idea, in theory, was to use VHDs to compartmentalize the data into smaller volumes which could be more easily managed. It would also improve performance when transferring these compartments of data as they would use sequential read/write rather than
fragmented/random. This idea was never fleshed out in entirety, they don't split data up into little containers, but simply into big ones per project. Hence the 11m files in one container that I am currently trying to diagnose.
Some other important facts: The VHD in question is mounted in B:/project/ as this server also allows remote workers to log in, but they are restricted to see only data in E:. Disks A-D are hidden via group policy.
Update: icacls is failing on a large number of files within this dataset. I counted the path characters to ensure it wasn't the 255 character limit I was encountering and verified that the paths being blocked are only about 150 characters long. Once it finishes,
I'll have to try taking ownership and then re-running it. At this point I still have no idea how long to expect. I'm running out of time as the environment will be in use again at 9AM tomorrow morning.

File accessability for multiple users

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for