Issue with QuickVPN on SA520 - only one user at a time?

Currently, whenever we have multiple users attempt to VPN in - the first user gets in fine, however, any subsequent user is able to connect but repeatedly receives the message that they are unable to communicate with the network, would you like to wait. I'd like to be able to have more than one user connected concurrently to the VPN - any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hi:
Thanks for reporting the issue. Please let us know which OS you are using that is experiencing this problem.
If you are using Window 7 and/or Vista, we already have a fix in our next release image 1.1.62 (MR2).
It would be release soon, either end of this week or early next week.
If you need it earlier, please let me know, I can PM you with a private image.
Thanks,
Charles

Similar Messages

Concurrent program to be submitted y only one user at a time

Hi
I have an issue with one of my reports. The report is using temporary tables, those will under go insertion and deletion while the report is running. So, to make sure that two or more concurrent requests submitted for same report, will not conflict, I want to make my concurrent request to be submitted by only one user at a time.
How can I do that?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks
BalaKrishna

The "run alone" box should not be checked. This indicates that this program can only run when no others are running. Pl see MOS Doc 1078462.6 (Custom SQL Concurrent Program Returns NO MANAGER Error). This option should typically not be used.
To be able to achieve what you need, set the incompatibility (as you have done) and then bounce the concurrent managers for the setting to take effect. Pl see these MOS Docs
436186.1 - Cannot Make Concurrent Programs Incompatible With Itself
142944.1 - How to Make a Concurrent Program Incompatible with Itself
HTH
Srini

1. Does not start automatically 2. Only ONE user at a time

When I plug the IPOD it should start iTunes automatically (I have the box checked) but it does not. Never has done that. I have the latest 7.1 version.
Another pain in the rear is that only one user at a time can run iTunes. That stinks. If another user has it open you MUST log off, stop them, log on. They ought to make this work for all users as other windows pro rams do. If it is doing NOTHING with the library then I ought to be able to use it.

That may be true but it is a real pain since when it happens the only way to recover is to terminate all of the iTunes modules with task manager and start it manually. It also leaves the IPOD in a state that says do not disconnect. You can disconnect since nothing is really happening but there is no excuse for this not to start much faster. When you have multiple users it is a real pain. It ought to be able to either end when finished or better yet allow multiple users simultaneously updating from different libraries.
I guess i will just have to get in the habit of treating it as a single user and start and stop it every time I need it and be suer not to let it run. Not nice because that means waiting for larger Podcast downloads instead of having there ready for me when I sign on my computer.

Only one user at the time can execute VE01 (due to blockage of VEIAV)

Hi,
As I understand it only one user at the time can execute VE01 (or MEIS for arrivals). If someone is already executing the VE01 transaction the error-message "Table VEIAV is blocked by user XX" appears. It does not matter if one tries to execute it for different legal entities - no parallel processing seems to be possible.
This is a huge limitation for a global concern with many entities operating in the same SAP instance. Does anyone recognize this problem and are there any ways to get around it? It does not make sense that dispatches (VE01) and arrivals (MEIS) cannot be executed for several organizational units at the same time in parallel?
Thanks in advance,
Mats Hansson

yes I know this problem.
One should not maintain much thru this transaction.
for me it is not more than an emergency transaction, as it is not really more than table maintenance thru SM30
You should investigate what entries/changes the users have to make.
Limit these manual entries by having better data in the system, so that SAP can itself create the entries for this table.
Organize more, less users , maybe just one per company who shall maintain VEFU manually.
Train them to prepare their entries before they start using VEFU.
Explain that they should leave VEFU as soon as possible as the block other users.
assign maintenance windows to the users.

Only one user at a time allowed to open MS Access database on a Mac share

I have an issue trying to open a Microsoft Access database from our Mac OS X Server running on XServe.
The MS Access file is stored on a Share Point on the XServe. Windows XP clients open the database. The problem is that it will only allow one user at a time to open the file. The has previously been operating fine when it was stored on a Windows server.
The Group's permissions for this Share Point allow Read & Write.
Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

I think you're being misled a bit by the interface: the checkbox labelled "Strict locking" doesn't just allow strict locking, it requires it (and thus disallows byte-range locking). That is, with strict locking enabled, any client that tries to lock any part of the file actually locks the entire file. Access normally depends on byte-range locking to allow different clients to share the database (as long as they aren't trying to modify the same part of it at the same time), but with strict locking the first client locks all others out.

Only one user at a time can log in per client

Server: 10.6.2
Client: 10.5.8
The share point on the server is the default of /Users. Home directories are configured as /Network/Severs/hostname/Users/username. In the "Home" tab of each user, the home directory shows up as "afp://hostname/Users", which is the default when creating a user.
On a given client, only one user can log in at a time. If the first user switches to the login screen without logging out (fast user switching), when the second user attempts to log in, they get an error "You are unable to log in to account "xxxx" at this time."
Looking in the secure.log, the error appears to be "file busy":
Mar 7 12:13:39 G4-MDD authorizationhost[677]: ERROR | -[HomeDirMounter mountNetworkHomeWithURL:attributes:dirPath:username:] | PremountHomeDirectoryWithAuthentication( url=afp://Mini.local/Users, homedir=/Network/Servers/Mini.local/Users/xxxxxx, name=xxxxxx ) returned 16
The server's /Users directory is mounted. It appears to be trying to automount another copy, rather than use the existing mount.
How do I resolve this so multiple users can be logged in at one time? Surely I don't have to create a share point for each user?

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one encountering this problem, although the fact that this problem has apparently existed for some time is mind boggling to me. The idea that there is some data corruption issue here is not a valid concern. We did this all the time on Linux in my previous life. There is no need to unmount the mounted directory, at least in the default case. The mount point is /Users. Home directories on the server are /Users/fred and /Users/sally. Automounter mounts /Users at the mount point /Network/Servers/serverhostname/Users. Fred is logged in and can access /Users/fred. Now Sally wants to log in. /Users is already mounted. There is no reason to unmount/remount /Users. OS X can see it is already mounted. Just log Sally in - she already has full access to her files.
If Fred and Sally reside on different servers, then there would be different mount points /Network/Servers/hostname/Users - again no conflict in the mount points.
The only solution I can see right now is a separate share point for each user, which is unacceptable. That might work for my two users. It's hardly scalable from a maintenance standpoint.
I do have the problem of fred logging out and sally not being able to get in right away, but that period is probably less than a minute. Wait a minute, then sally can log in.

Only one user at a time

I'm looking for help.
I have two user accounts on my iMac. Both have their own iTunes library file but these both reference to a shared store of music files (to avoid duplicates). I would now like to move this shared music to an external HDD attached to my TC.
My problem is this. If user 1 first accesses the external HDD then when user 2 tries to do so there is a little red icon on the folder and permission is denied. If I disconnect all users from the TC and then retry with user 2 the problem is reversed. It seems to me that only one user account is allowed to access a TC external HDD at a time. Is there any way around this?
In case anybody asks, my reason for moving the files is that I am hoping to buy a Sonos music system, which can read iTunes music from the TC as though it were an NAS, even if the computer is off.

I think you're being misled a bit by the interface: the checkbox labelled "Strict locking" doesn't just allow strict locking, it requires it (and thus disallows byte-range locking). That is, with strict locking enabled, any client that tries to lock any part of the file actually locks the entire file. Access normally depends on byte-range locking to allow different clients to share the database (as long as they aren't trying to modify the same part of it at the same time), but with strict locking the first client locks all others out.

Is there a way have a file only accessable by only one user at a time

Here's the question...
I want to set up a file so that it can only be accessed by only one person at a time - is there any way to do this?

Turn off fast user switching and autologin, making all users log off before other users can use the machine.

Only One User Can Access Time Capsule At A Time

This seems strange....
I've been using the Time Capsule without issue for around a year. I can access it from my Mac Mini with no problem. I can also access it from my Macbook with no problem. When it comes to the iMac, I have two user accounts. One for me, and one for my wife. When my wife tried to access it, the Time Capsule blocked access beyond the root. (So we could select TC from the sidebar, then double-click the TC folder that appeared, then the small icon in the top of the window has a stop sign through it with no folders displayed).
Mine is fine - so I tried to fix it by deleting my wife's keychain passwords to the TC. I reset them and it connected her. However, when I swapped to my account I was locked out!
I reconnected, and I regained access - and now my wife's locked out again!
I haven't got the time capsule set to user account access, so I have no idea where to go from here!
Please help!

I am not sure if this issue is happening because of following observation.
The config is using ip 10.2.10.255 in the VPN pool , we cannot use this ip address as this is broadcast ip in the VPN pool subnet. Do the following and then check connecting vpn clients and post results.
no ip local pool ifn_noc_ips 10.2.10.1-10.2.10.255 mask 255.255.255.0
ip local pool ifn_noc_ips 10.2.10.1-10.2.10.254 mask 255.255.255.0
HTH
Saju
Pls rate helpful posts

Database 'TEST' is already open and can only have one user at a time.

Hi all,
Could some help on this issue as per urgency!
Database 'TEST' is already open and can only have one user at a time.
I also tried this command but having the same error, please let me know how to troubleshoot this issue
Use Master
GO
Select * from master.sys.sysprocesses
Where spid > 50
And dbid=DB_ID (‘StuckDB’)) -- replace with your database name
Thanks

Hi Tony,
sorry got the same error again, it can't allow me sp_who2 as well
I tried above command got the following error
Changes
to the state or options of database ‘TEST’ cannot be made at this time. The database is in single-user mode, and a user is currently connected to it.Msg 5069, Level 16, State 1,

How to : only one user in a branch can do the batch process at a time ?

dear gurus,
In ADF web application, accessed by multiple branch (20), there is a
batch process to create invoices from orders. There are 3-5 users in a
branch. one user can process about 30 - 50 orders to become
invoices.
Business rule is : In one batch process, each users must produce
invoices with gapless invoice number. e.g : user_1 create 30 invoices
no.001 - 030, user_2 create 40 invoices no.031-070 ... and so on...
So we want to protect that at a time, in one branch, only one user can
do the batch process. User_2 must wait until user_1 is done to start
the process.
We use the table below to maintain the latest invoice number created :
CREATE TABLE doc_number
DOC_TYPE VARCHAR2(6 BYTE) NOT NULL,
BRANCH_CODE VARCHAR2(6 BYTE) NOT NULL,
DOC_NBR NUMBER(12) DEFAULT 0,
CONSTRAINT "DOC_NUMBER_PK" PRIMARY KEY (DOC_TYPE, BRANCH_CODE)
The question is :
I think of locking a spicific row of the doc_number table (select ...
for update wait 10) at the beginning of the batch process stored
procedure.
But what if the session/connection left orphan and the row is lockde
forever before the dba kill it ?
So is there a better approach to limit the user execution of the
process ?
Thank you very much for your help,
Krist

Forget it. See http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:4343369880986.
However, if you are dead set on doing this old fashioned thing of trying to emulate paper invoices from a numbered tablet, you could always just let everyone generate all of their invoices with no invoice number whenever they want, then at some time ( say 21:00 every day), take a lock on the table and apply invoice numbers to all of the records with a null invoice number -- which will take only a few centiseconds at most. And let the users/system print only invoices that have numbers assigned. This way, you pretty much eliminate the concurrency issue of various branches generating invoices only in their time window -- yuk, what an awful way to have to do business.
And completely forget about users or branches having their own range of numbers. That is completely nuts. Your database already knows which branch owns which invoice, right??

Why does the Error: 500 SC_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR appear when multiple users access my JSPs but does not occur when only one user accesses my JSPs?

When multiple users run my JSP application, why do some users get an Error: 500 SC_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR for certain JSP pages with the error message No such file or directory. The JSP listed on the Error 500 page varies and is not always the same. When only one user runs my JSP application, the problem does not occur?
The database connection is held when the user logs in or accesses certain parts of the JSP and then is immediately released. No connections to the database are held.
We are using Solaris 8 with MU_6 plus recommended patches.
Enterprise Ultra 250
iAS 6 SP 3

Is anything showing up in the KXS or KJS logs?
It sounds like you might having some kind of thread safety issue with your code. Either that or your guess about running out of database connections.

When I try to edit preferences iTunes for Windows locks up. I have only one user. This is true even after a reboot.

When I try to edit preferences iTunes for Windows locks up. I have only one user. This is true even after a reboot.

Hello MF7642,
Thank you for contacting Apple Support Communities.
You can use this article to troubleshoot your issues with iTunes.
iTunes: Missing folder or incorrect permissions may prevent authorization
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1277
Regards,
Jeff D.

Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender (Only One User)

Hi,
I am facing really strange issue from last two days but fail to resolve the issue.
My hosted exchange 2010 is working absolute fine. I configured new domain (previously using SBS2003 with Postini service), all users are working fine no spam emails, NDR etc (We are using Forefornt Protection 2010 for Exchange Server, All engines are updated)
but only one user/email address continuously receiving spam emails. Please review the attach pictures of Message Tracking, Email and Header.
I really don't know what is the issue, users continuously receiving below emails after 2 or 3 minutes, i am just wondering why my exchange server allow those email address. How i can stop these emails.
Note: Old SBS server is shutdown. Postini service is already disabled.
Please help me.
Mail:
Header & Tracker:

Hi,
According to your description, it seems that the user's computer has virus.
I recommend you scan the user's computer and check if any virus caused the issue.
Thanks.
Niko Cheng
TechNet Community Support

HT5622 Have Family Mobile with 2 phones and only one Apple ID can all be controlled by the main phone?

Have Family Mobile with 2 phones and only one Apple ID can all be controlled by the main phone?

angiefromaustin wrote:
Yes I know the password for Apple ID.
Then there should be no issue for you.
angiefromaustin wrote:
I do not know the password to get onto the 3G phone to make changes or update apps etc.
Then there is more than one Apple ID involved.... Or a Restrictions Passcode has been set.
angiefromaustin wrote:
2 phones and only one Apple ID
Then what do you mean by this ?

Issue with QuickVPN on SA520 - only one user at a time?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for