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

Similar Messages

Sharing iTunes library/playlist, only one user can run iTunes

Greetings everyone
Just got a new aluminum iMac, setting it up for the wife and kids. From the descriptions here, I have set up several accounts to share a single iTunes library, by creating aliases in each user's iTunes folder that point to the shared library. It seems to work great: I only have to import music ONCE (instead of once for each user), and if one user creates or changes a new playlist, everyone sees it, which is exactly what I wanted.
However, I have run into a small problem, and it is this. Under this setup, with everyone sharing the same library, *only one person can be running iTunes at a time.* If user A is running iTunes and doesn't quit the app when the computer is switched to User B or C, they get the message
----- +"The iTunes Library is locked, on a locked disk, or you do not have write permission for this file."+
----- Switch back to User A, quit iTunes, and then the others can launch iTunes fine (though again, just ONE of them). Same behavior regardless of whether the user is admin or not.
So, is there any way to enable more than one user to run iTunes at once under this shared scenario? I'm thinking iTunes may not allow multiple users to access the library file at once, so it may be necessary to have users quit iTunes or log out before switching accounts. Let me know if there is a workaround or if anyone has gotten this to work....
Thanks in advance!
sno-man

Hi, I just read your post here - I'd like to do exactly what you were able to do, that is, sharing one iTunes library with multiple user accounts on my iMac so that we can both use/add to the same library (I also want to do this with iPhoto, so I'm assuming it's the same process); would you mind quickly telling me how you were able to do this? I've been checking around and can't find a reliable answer. I'd appreciate it - thanks!

Can I create pages that only authorized users can access?

I need to create pages that only authorized users can access, is that possible to be done with Muse?

Hi Natalia,
If you are using Business Catalyst as a host , then "Yes" you need to publish a website to use Secure zone of Business Catalyst.
If you are using a different host or BC then you may use third party widgets like
Adobe Muse Password Protection Widget | MuseThemes.com
Thanks
Prabhakar Kumar

I want to be the only one who can access my profile, so how to create passwords for profiles (NOT for websites) ?

I want to be the only one who can access my profile, so how to create passwords for profiles (NOT for websites) ?
thanks

Maybe use the portable Firefox version on a USB stick if you want to prevent access to your profile.<br />
Solutions that use an extension can easily be bypassed by starting in [[Safe mode]].<br />
Otherwise you need to locate the Firefox profile folder on an encrypted drive.
See http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/browsers/portable_firefox

Locking a JSP Page i.e allowing only one user to access it at a time

Hi,
I have web application where multiple users can log in at the same time.
I have a JSP where a user is presented with a list of executable items.It is quite possible that at the same time more that one user tries to execute the same item.I want to disable this. i.e at a time only one user should be able to execute the item.
Currently what i can think of is putting an extra column in the database...saying that this item is locked and you cannot access it until unlocked.But then this would involve a round trip to database.I want to avoid it, and do some coding in java code itself.
But i dont know how to proceed.
Any Help......

sorry for the misdirection :(
yes..try using the synchronizing for the run process for of the item in the action class.
I shall try to provide you with the code changes, if can you please provide the back end code doing the job u said

Only one computer can connect to internet at a time!

When my modem is connected, I plug one ethernet line into one computer. That computer sometime has access to the internet, but sometimes it doesn't work, and another computer is able to access the internet. Each computer uses different cables. When one computer has internet, other computers cannot access the internet if we decide to connect via another cable. Using the same cable doesn't work, also. Sometimes, all computers cannot access the internet.
For example, this computer I am using to write this currently has internet. However, when I unplug this computer's ethernet line from the modem and connect the other computer's ethernet line into the modem, it cannot connect. (Safari cannot connect to the internet.) Network diagnosis has a GREEN light next to "Built-In Ethernet," YELLOW for "Network Settings," and RED for the rest (ISP, Internet, Server)
Lastly, in the Network Status in System Preferences, Built-In Ethernet is YELLOW and says that it has a self-assigned IP address. However, I did not self assign the IP and is set to 'Automatic.'
Thank you so much!

Do I understand this correctly? You have one modem with one ethernet jack on it. Only one computer can have access to the internet at a time, depending on who you plug in to the modem? If the computers have wireless capability, you don't have a wireless access point or wireless router, so you can't take advantage of the computers' wireless. You don't have a wired hub or more than one ethernet jack on the modem nor do you have a stand-alone router (that plugs into the single ethernet jack on the modem) with multiple ethernet jacks, so multiple computers cannot connect to the internet simultaneously.
If this is the case, then when you turn on a computer that isn't plugged in, since there is no router there for it to obtain an address from (I'm assuming your computers are set up for DHCP), it is going to try to create/join it's own ad-hoc network and give itself a self-assigned address beginning with 169.x.x.x. (If you had a multi-port hub or wireless access point, with no routing capabilities, this is how you could set up an isolated network of computers without access to the outside world but with access to each other).
Meanwhile, your modem is either giving the plugged-in computer a 192.x.x.x or a 10.x.x.x address (unless you changed stuff in it) or it is passing your public IP address presented to it by your ISP straight through to your plugged-in computer (that was plugged when when you booted up).
So when you unplug one and plug in another, the network settings don't match. If you unplugged one and plugged in the other and then booted up the other one, I would expect to see a working internet connection at that point.
If my original assumption of your home configuration is in error, please describe how you are set up, e.g., internet<-->modem<-->router<-->computers or whatever. Maybe do that anyways, even if my assumption is accurate. Describe whether your modem employs NAT or is in bridge mode? Does it have a DHCP server and is it enabled or is it set up for static IP on your home LAN? Describe whether your router, if not built into the modem, employs NAT or is in bridge mode? Does it have a DHCP server and is it enabled or is it set up for static IP on your home LAN? How are your network settings configured in your computers? DHCP or other (what)? A visit to your modem and/or router configuration pages, to see what the external WAN address (a.k.a. public IP address) (at least the first one or two or three octets), and what do your computers' sys prefs IP address, router address, and DNS server addresses say they are, would be helpful, too (you can safely divulge publicly full 192.x.x.x, 10.x.x.x, and 169.x.x.x addresses because they are not routable). I don't know about other folks reading this, but I would need to know quite a bit more about your home network architecture and configuration.

ONLY One user can't sign into outlook

So we have Exchange 2013 and Server 2012 R2 Remote collections setup. A user logs into the remote collection and can open outlook. If it's the first time they get the usual detecting account and everything works fine. But for one user, it just doesn't find
his account. No matter if you enter it manually or automatically. It just can't see his account. I can type in another user's name and it pops right up.
So I figured I'd export his pst, disable the mailbox, create him a new mailbox and import the .pst.
Well that didn't work either. Should I go ahead and delete the User in AD? Then recreate it? I've already tested creating a new user and logging into outlook, importing his pst to the test user. So I know that would work. BUT is there anything left hanging
after I delete the existing user(only been tested with a brand new user) from the Exchange Admin Console? Is it better to delete it directly in AD or from the exchange console?
Thank you.

OWA was working fine.
These were the steps I just did to get it working with Outlook...
1. Backup .pst
2. Backup old UDP
3. Disable mailbox in exchange admin console
4. Deleted user in AD
5. Created new user/mailbox through exchange console
6. Verified outlook could login with the new user(same name as old)
7. Imported old pst
8. Mounted old UPD and copied over the few files he had.
9. Removed old UPD.
Everything is working fine now.

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.

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??

How many users can access networked itunes at one time?

So we've got an Apple Extreme router and I've plugged a hard-drive in the back which has both our itunes & iphoto libraries on it. The idea being that all 3 of our mac laptops can use one networked library.
However we are finding that only one mac can access each library at any one time - if another mac attempts to access the program simultaneously, it receives a message that the program is locked.
Is it possible for more than one mac to access each program at any one time? If so, how?
Thanks,
James

See Max connections in Oracle 10g Express
and ask such questions in that or Express edition forum.
Gints Plivna
http://www.gplivna.eu

FRM-40501 - Even if there is only one user

Hi experts!
When we try to updated a value of a database item in Forms 10g runtime, it throws FRM-40501 error and the values are not getting commited. Only one user is accessing the database. Query Allowed, Insert allowed and update allowed are set to yes in the block. Is there any property to be set to make it work?
The same code works well in Forms 6i but not in 10g Forms. Plz help me out..
Thanks in Advance,
Natz...

FRM-40501: ORACLE error: unable to reserve record for update or delete.
Cause: A fatal error occurred while trying to select the record for update.
Action: Pressing [Display Error] provides more information, if it is available. You can also try to update or delete this record later. If necessary, contact your DBA.
Hard to say why this is happening because you haven't provided much information.
* Have you tried pressing the Display Error?
* What is your form doing when the error occurs?
* Does this only happen to certain records? If so, your DBA will may need to unlock them.
* Are you using lock_record built-in?
* Have you tried creating a simple form and seeing if the problem still occurs?

RRAS issue - only one client can connect?

Hello, I have set up my server 2012 standard server and set it up as a DC and RRAS server, the VPN works perfectly but only one user can use it, the second user will always get error 800. there are enough IP slots in the LAN and it is correctly assigning
a new IP address to each new user that connects, but only one can connect at a time without error - I have searched around and couldnt find anything conclusive - is this a licensing or configuration issue?
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
Larry

Hi Larry,
As far as I know, it’s not recommended to install RRAS server role on DC, since it would make the DC multi-homed.
I suggest you install RRAS server role on another server.
Here is a related blog below for you:
Multihomed DCs with DNS, RRAS, and/or PPPoE adapters
http://blogs.msmvps.com/acefekay/2009/08/17/multihomed-dcs-with-dns-rras-and-or-pppoe-adapters/
If there is any RRAS/VPN related query, please refer to Network Infrastructure Servers forum below to get more efficient support:
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/home?forum=winserverNIS
Best Regards,
Amy
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and un-mark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Subscriber Support, contact [email protected]

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.

My time capsule says it only has 473.24 gb for my back up of 534gb. the only back up I can access when I enter the time machine was yesterdays so what has happened?

my time capsule says it only has 473.24 gb for my back up of 534gb. the only back up I can access when I enter the time machine was yesterdays so any idea what is happening? I have the latest irmware update.
Marmimag

There is an issue with latest Lion update.. it is killing TM.
https://discussions.apple.com/message/19858557#19858557
Otherwise check via the airport utility if there is something else using space on the hard disk.

ITunes 90 day lock out on iMac - only one AppleID can use a Mac at any one time?

Just found out, the hard way, about Apple's patently ridiculous "90 Day Lockout" policy on iTunes (Match, Purchases download and pretty much ALL the useful features).
Apparently, at least according to Support - who feigned surprise that this was an issue - if you blow £1,200 on an iMac to be used by two people in your home and have paid Apple an extra £25 a head for iTunes Match, you're terribly gullible. And stupid. And a potential music thief.
The real problem is that Apple, probably in a bid to secure record label agreement to iTunes Match and in a vain attempt to curb unlawful music sharing, has decided that NO MORE THAN ONE APPLE ID can be associated with a machine ID at any one time, for iTunes purposes.
This is fine on iPhone, iPod Touch and even iPad. Those are hardware that only one person can use at a time - there is no "multi-user" capability.
Macs, though, are a different matter. In Apple World we're all filthy rich and each member of a household is expected to own a separate Mac machine (iMac, MacBook Pro or Air) to be able to use the functionality and music they've paid for in iTunes and via Match.
If you're stupid or poor or just think a Mac per person in a household is consumerism gone mad, you are stuffed.
In our case we bought an iMac. Set up two separate and distinct User IDs and one of us set up iTunes and activated iTunes Match.
Next day the other went into their User account, set up iTunes and then activated iTunes Match. A very very vague message popped up alluding to "transferring an Apple ID to this machine" and referencing inability to use this AppleID on another machine for 90 days. That seemed OK. The AppleID had been associated on an old Compaq netbook for iTunes, so the assumption was that it was that association that was being transferred to the iMac.
WRONG!
What had happened was that the second person to sign in to the iMac and set up their TOTALLY SEPERATE AppleID on a TOTALLY SEPERATE iTunes Match library and account had effectively locked out the first user from their iTunes account.
So, if you're a family with individual iTunes accounts and iTunes Match don't bother with Apple Mac products. For the cash you spend on one mac product that only one of you will be able to use iTunes on EVERY 90 DAYS, you'd be better off buying separate, higher spec Windo$e laptops to sync with.
Apple has really really fouled up on this.
Support initially justified this lock out policy as being to prevent Johnny Fileshare from zipping round to his mate's house, logging into iTunes with his AppleID on his mates PC or Mac and downloading his paid for iTunes library onto his mates Mac as a gift.
Just how likely such a random outburst of philanthropy at the expense of record labels would be is beyond me.
During a near two hour call with support (use the Call Me function - at least the call is free) eventually, after an escalation, the tech agreed that the 90 days AppleID lock was pointless as Apple themselves publish details in their knowledge base on how to circumvent music sharing restrictions and combine iTunes libraries - even helpfully including details of how to put said combined iTunes library on a memory stick. Johnny Fileshare can then nip round his mates house and share his iTunes content with his mate until the cows come home.
Even worse, Apple even allow you to burn to CD a combined iTunes library up to FIVE TIMES!
But, when it comes to logging into your own iTunes account on a shared Mac? Forget it matey. You'll steal music and can't be trusted.
Well FU too, Apple.
But wait! You may think you're OK because you weren't foolish enough to hand over £25 for iTunes Match...
BEWARE: THE 90 DAY LOCKOUT IS ACTIVATED THE SECOND A USER ON A MAC ACTIVATES EITHER:
1. Automatic downloads, or
2 iTunes Match
OR IF THEY HAVE THE TEMERITY TO:
1. Check previous purchases
THIS RENDERS ITUNES AS A PRODUCT/SERVICE WORSE THAN USELESS ON SHARED MACS.
We have 82 days to wait for one of us to regain access to the library that cost us a fortune to build in iTunes.
1 Week old iMac is being boxed up & returned to Apple Store.
Two high spec non Apple laptops being bought as a replacement. The change to be spent on petrol or pasties - which ever the UK is running out of most...

Yes, I am having this problem because I have 2 Apple IDs/iTunes accounts. Mind you, I don't want 2 accounts but Apple forced me to make a new apple ID when they started requiring email addresses as user ID. This was the first big mistake that Apple made. Their second mistake was not allowing people to simply merge these accounts. Had they not made these mistakes initially, many people would still only have one Apple account/ID. Some bloke ought to lose his job over that.
However, I understand this isn't the same problem as having multiple household members using the same computer. It seems that Apple could figure this all out by either authorizing multiple users at the time of purchase, or allowing a handful of users to download to one computer. After all, if I bought a hard copy of a music CD, I could certainly allow my son or daughter to listen to it or download it to their computer. Next thing you know, I'll have to sign a release saying that I am the only person that uses my iPod.
I am also returning not just one but 2 brand new Mac computers ($4500 coming back from Apple to my wallet) because I am so fed up with the poor customer service response that Apple has given this problem. Not only did they take a ton of my money for iTUnes songs, but then they restricted my access to those songs. I think it's criminal and I wouldn't be surprised if this issue ended up as a class action wrongdoing suit. I have to admit I've considered talking to a lawyer about it myself. I am so sick of large monopolizing companies thinking that they can treat their customers poorly and expect us to sit back and take it. The good news is that this is a free country and I can choose to throw my money at any old company I choose..........Toshiba here I come.

Only One User Can Access Time Capsule At A Time

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for