One User at a Time

I am having trouble with Flash Player 9 on Windows XP. I have
uninstalled it and reinstalled it for one user, but when I try it
on another user it says it installed successfully, but doesn't show
any content. I have even downloaded SubInACL from Microsoft,
uninstaller from Adobe and run them both, but can still only get
flash player on one user. This question has been asked before but
nobody replied and you can't get any information from Adobe.
Anybody out there with information? PLEASE!!

quote:
Originally posted by:
Rick Z
The answer in another post fixed my problem. See:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?forumid=44&catid=184&threadid =1360867&highlight_key=y&keyword1=install
I believe this will fix a general permissions problem I have
had with this user that kept other programs from installing
correctly.
Hi Rick Z,
I glad to hear this fix worked for you.
Thanks for linking the two posts, if the ActiveX fails to
install due to a Windows system registry permission conflicts you
can use Microsoft’s SubInACL tool.
Please download Microsoft’s tool to your desktop.
http://www.supportflash.com/reset_min.zip
1. Login as the User that has the incorrect permissions in
the system registry
2. unzip the “reset_minimal.cmd” and the
“subinacl.exe” to the desktop
*** Make sure both files are on the desktop
3. Close out all applications
4. Run the “reset.cmd” file
5. It will open a DOS like terminal and start running through
registry keys
6. When it is finished it will say “press any key to
continue”
7. At this point you can download the latest Flash Player
from here:
www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

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

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,

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.

Can a user facetime with more than one user at a time

I can use facetime with Macbook and connect to another Macbook user on another WIFI network... I was wondering if one can facetime with more than one user at a time?

ellis911 wrote:
I can use facetime with Macbook and connect to another Macbook user on another WIFI network... I was wondering if one can facetime with more than one user at a time?
Only if you have more than one device running FaceTime at your end.
Mac Pro Quad Core (Early 2009) 2.93Ghz Mac OS X (10.6.5); MacBook Pro (13 inch, Mid 2009) 2.26GHz (10.6.5)
LED Cinema Display; G4 PowerBook 1.67GHz (10.4.11); iBookSE 366MHz (10.3.9); External iSight; iPod4touch4.2.1

Page should be accessed by one user at a time

Hi friends,
I have a new requirement where webpage should be accessed by one user at a time.Suppose if one user is using the page ,the other user should not be having the privilage to access tht page.NOw how to go about..If possibel pls help me with the code..
Thanks in advance..
Waiting for ur suggestion.

Finally i am using a method..
<script language="JavaScript">
window.onbeforeunload = confirmExit;
function confirmExit()
      document.LoginForm.action="next.php";
      document.LoginForm.submit();
    return "Are you want to exit this page?";
    return false;
</script>
</HEAD>
<BODY onbeforeunload="confirmExit()">
<form name="LoginForm">
</form>
</body>
</html>I am using onbeforeunload ,so when ever the page is refreshed or user tries to move from the page i call function from tht i go to a page where i do file creation . when ever user access the page, simultaneously other users wiil be detained access for tht page..
But the problem i am facing here is..whenever the user tries to change focus from the page a pop up comes up saying do u want to continue or not..if user press cancel actually the control has to remain in the same page but still the control is passed to the different page...
pls advice on this..

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 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.

One user appearing multiple time in Users on System report

Hi,
While checking the logging report I found one user is appearing multiple times. Is this the normal behaviour of Hyperion of Is there any setting in Hyperion to display one user only once.
Also can we control the users the from loging into systme multiple time at a time.
Thanks,
Ajaya Kumar

If multiple people know the username and password they can definitely be shared. This is a violation of your licensiing and is a major reason why most SOX departments require Active Directory linking. For testing purposes I have created native IDs to be shared among people so that I know they are identical.

How do I just backup just one user account on Time Machine?

Hello everyone,
I've moved to a new computer with Mountain Lion and didn't have my backup disc available when I first set up the computer. Now, after restoring from my backup, I have two user accounts that I am trying to combine as per instructions here. I know it's challenging and I may have to reinstall the OS and start from scratch, so I'd like to backup before I do it. Unfortunately I haven't plugged in Time Machine since I've used Migration Assistant, because I didn't know if I could or if it'd overwrite my old data.
How can I back up the new computer without creating two user accounts (the ones I'm trying to combine) on my external drive? And please don't recommend just buying another external hard drive. Any advice is appreciated.
Thanks.

Aside from starting over, losing whatever you've done on the new machine, see Pondini's Transferring files from one User Account to another. If you haven't done much and can afford to lose that data, I suggest starting over, following the steps in Pondini's Setup New Mac guide. That should result in just one user account.

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.

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.

Can only connect one user at a time via VPN?

Hi, long-term Mac user but new to OS X Server. Dug thru the forums quite a bit but couldn't find an answer to this one - hopefully I wasn't searching with the wrong keywords.
Installed OS X Server 10.6 on a MacBook (white, 1 generation back) at the office. Sits behind an Airport Extreme, which is connected to Comcast. Other machines at the office are NOT routed through the Server, but rather connect directly to the Airport Extreme for internet access. I've set up server.mydomainname.com to point to our Comcast address, and I am able to connect via VPN to the server without any problems, and access the server using the server.mydomainname.com address which I pointed to my Comcast IP address, as long as I check "Send all traffic over VPN connection" on my client.
However, when I'm logged in via VPN on one computer, and then log in via VPN on another computer (with the same UID or a different one), the first one loses all connectivity through the VPN - it's as if it had been logged off.
In Server Admin, under the Settings|Network tabs, I have Computer Name set up as "theserver", and Local Hostname as "theserver" (so I can access via theserver.private). VPN is set up to enable L2TP over IPsec, sharing ranges 10.0.1.200 thru 10.0.1.220; no load balancing, no PPTP. Client DNS servers is set to 10.0.1.29.
Any ideas as to why I can only connect with one client at a time?

Thanks. I didn't see anything interesting, but then again I'm not up on VPN details. Here's the scenario:
First, I logged in as "user1", and I can use the VPN.
Then, I logged in as "user2", and I can use the VPN with user2, but user1 is no longer able to do anything over the VPN.
Then I hung up with user2, but user1 still can't see anything over the VPN.
Then I hung up and reconnected with user1, and user1 can use the VPN again.
Here's part of the log for this activity. I've replaced potentially identifying info with "XYZ" for safety. Appreciate any thoughts on this!
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : L2TP received ICCN
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : L2TP connection established.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : using link 1
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : Using interface ppp1
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : Connect: ppp1 <--> socket[34:18]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0> <auth chap MS-v2> <magic XYZ> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0> <magic XYZ> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : lcp_reqci: returning CONFACK.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [LCP ConfAck id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0> <magic XYZ> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0> <auth chap MS-v2> <magic XYZ> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [LCP EchoReq id=0x0 magic=XYZ]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [CHAP Challenge id=0x18 <XYZ>, name = "myserver.private"]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [LCP EchoReq id=0x0 magic=XYZ]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [LCP EchoRep id=0x0 magic=XYZ]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [LCP EchoRep id=0x0 magic=XYZ]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [CHAP Response id=0x18 <XYZ>, name = "user2"]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [CHAP Success id=0x18 "S=XYZ M=Access granted"]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : CHAP peer authentication succeeded for user2
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : DSAccessControl plugin: User 'user2' authorized for access
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [IPCP ConfReq id=0x1 <addr 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [ACSCP ConfReq id=0x1]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [IPCP ConfReq id=0x1 <addr 0.0.0.0> <ms-dns1 0.0.0.0> <ms-dns3 0.0.0.0>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : ipcp: returning Configure-NAK
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [IPCP ConfNak id=0x1 <addr 10.0.1.213> <ms-dns1 10.0.1.29> <ms-dns3 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [IPV6CP ConfReq id=0x1 <addr XYZ>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : Unsupported protocol 0x8057 received
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [LCP ProtRej id=0x2 80 47 01 01 00 0f 01 0a 02 1b 63 ff fe a0 dd da]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [ACSCP ConfReq id=0x1 <ms-dns1 0.0.0.1> <ms-dns1 0.0.0.1>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [ACSCP ConfRej id=0x1 <ms-dns1 0.0.0.1>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [IPCP ConfAck id=0x1 <addr 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [ACSCP ConfAck id=0x1]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [IPCP ConfReq id=0x2 <addr 10.0.1.213> <ms-dns1 10.0.1.29> <ms-dns3 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : ipcp: returning Configure-ACK
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [IPCP ConfAck id=0x2 <addr 10.0.1.213> <ms-dns1 10.0.1.29> <ms-dns3 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : ipcp: up
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : l2tpwaitinput: Address added. previous interface setting (name: en0, address: 10.0.1.29), current interface setting (name: ppp1, family: PPP, address: 10.0.1.29, subnet: 255.0.0.0, destination: 10.0.1.213).
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : found interface en0 for proxy arp
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : local IP address 10.0.1.29
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : remote IP address 10.0.1.213
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : l2tpwaitinput: Address added. previous interface setting (name: en0, address: 10.0.1.29), current interface setting (name: ppp1, family: PPP, address: 10.0.1.29, subnet: 255.0.0.0, destination: 10.0.1.213).
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [ACSCP ConfReq id=0x2 <ms-dns1 0.0.0.1>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [ACSCP ConfAck id=0x2 <ms-dns1 0.0.0.1>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [ACSP data <payload len 26, packet seq 0, CI_DOMAINS, flags: START END REQUIRE-ACK>
<domain: name XYZ>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [IP data <src addr 10.0.1.213> <dst addr 255.255.255.255> <BOOTP Request> <type INFORM> <client id 0x08000000010000> <parameters = 0x6 0x2c 0x2b 0x1 0xf9 0xf>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : sent [IP data <src addr 10.0.1.29> <dst addr 10.0.1.213> <BOOTP Reply> <type ACK> <server id 0x0a00011d> <domain name "XYZ">]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:08 2010 : rcvd [ACSP data <payload len 0, packet seq 0, CI_DOMAINS, flags: ACK>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : rcvd [LCP TermReq id=0x2 "User request"]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : LCP terminated by peer (User request)
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : ipcp: down
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : l2tpwaitinput: Address deleted. previous interface setting (name: en0, address: 10.0.1.29), deleted interface setting (name: ppp1, family: PPP, address: 10.0.1.29, subnet: 255.0.0.0, destination: 10.0.1.213).
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : sent [LCP TermAck id=0x2]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : l2tpwaitinput: Address deleted. previous interface setting (name: en0, address: 10.0.1.29), deleted interface setting (name: ppp1, family: PPP, address: 10.0.1.29, subnet: 255.0.0.0, destination: 10.0.1.213).
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : L2TP received CDN
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : Connection terminated.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : Connect time 0.5 minutes.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : Sent 777000 bytes, received 105388 bytes.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : L2TP disconnecting...
Tue Oct 19 07:33:34 2010 : L2TP disconnected
2010-10-19 07:33:34 PDT --> Client with address = 10.0.1.213 has hungup
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : rcvd [LCP TermReq id=0x3 "User request"]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : LCP terminated by peer (User request)
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : ipcp: down
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : sent [LCP TermAck id=0x3]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : l2tpwaitinput: Address deleted. previous interface setting (name: en0, address: 10.0.1.29), deleted interface setting (name: ppp0, family: PPP, address: 10.0.1.29, subnet: 255.0.0.0, destination: 10.0.1.214).
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : L2TP received CDN
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : Connection terminated.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : Connect time 3.5 minutes.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : Sent 625383 bytes, received 225586 bytes.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : L2TP disconnecting...
Tue Oct 19 07:33:50 2010 : L2TP disconnected
2010-10-19 07:33:50 PDT --> Client with address = 10.0.1.214 has hungup
2010-10-19 07:33:59 PDT Incoming call... Address given to client = 10.0.1.216
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : Directory Services Authentication plugin initialized
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : Directory Services Authorization plugin initialized
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : L2TP incoming call in progress from 'XYZ'...
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : L2TP received SCCRQ
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : L2TP sent SCCRP
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : L2TP received SCCCN
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : L2TP received ICRQ
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : L2TP sent ICRP
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : L2TP received ICCN
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : L2TP connection established.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : using link 0
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : Using interface ppp0
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : Connect: ppp0 <--> socket[34:18]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0> <auth chap MS-v2> <magic XYZ> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0> <magic XYZ> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : lcp_reqci: returning CONFACK.
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : sent [LCP ConfAck id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0> <magic XYZ> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x1 <asyncmap 0x0> <auth chap MS-v2> <magic XYZ> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : sent [LCP EchoReq id=0x0 magic=XYZ]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : sent [CHAP Challenge id=0xf1 <XYZ>, name = "myserver.private"]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : rcvd [LCP EchoReq id=0x0 magic=XYZ]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : sent [LCP EchoRep id=0x0 magic=XYZ]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : rcvd [LCP EchoRep id=0x0 magic=XYZ]
Tue Oct 19 07:33:59 2010 : rcvd [CHAP Response id=0xf1 <XYZ>, name = "user1"]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : sent [CHAP Success id=0xf1 "S=XYZ M=Access granted"]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : CHAP peer authentication succeeded for user1
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : DSAccessControl plugin: User 'user1' authorized for access
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : sent [IPCP ConfReq id=0x1 <addr 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : sent [ACSCP ConfReq id=0x1]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : rcvd [IPCP ConfReq id=0x1 <addr 0.0.0.0> <ms-dns1 0.0.0.0> <ms-dns3 0.0.0.0>]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : ipcp: returning Configure-NAK
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : sent [IPCP ConfNak id=0x1 <addr 10.0.1.216> <ms-dns1 10.0.1.29> <ms-dns3 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : rcvd [IPV6CP ConfReq id=0x1 <addr XYZ>]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : Unsupported protocol 0x8057 received
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : sent [LCP ProtRej id=0x2 80 57 01 01 00 0e 01 0a 02 1b 63 ff fe 99 35 cb]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : rcvd [LCP ProtRej id=0x2 82 35 01 01 00 04]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : rcvd [IPCP ConfAck id=0x1 <addr 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : rcvd [IPCP ConfReq id=0x2 <addr 10.0.1.216> <ms-dns1 10.0.1.29> <ms-dns3 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : ipcp: returning Configure-ACK
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : sent [IPCP ConfAck id=0x2 <addr 10.0.1.216> <ms-dns1 10.0.1.29> <ms-dns3 10.0.1.29>]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : ipcp: up
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : found interface en0 for proxy arp
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : local IP address 10.0.1.29
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : remote IP address 10.0.1.216
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : l2tpwaitinput: Address added. previous interface setting (name: en0, address: 10.0.1.29), current interface setting (name: ppp0, family: PPP, address: 10.0.1.29, subnet: 255.0.0.0, destination: 10.0.1.216).
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : rcvd [IP data <src addr 10.0.1.216> <dst addr 255.255.255.255> <BOOTP Request> <type INFORM> <client id 0x08000000010000> <parameters = 0x6 0x2c 0x2b 0x1 0xf9 0xf>]
Tue Oct 19 07:34:00 2010 : sent [IP data <src addr 10.0.1.29> <dst addr 10.0.1.216> <BOOTP Reply> <type ACK> <server id 0x0a00011d> <domain name "XYZ">]

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.

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

One User at a Time

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for