Hi,
I run MC from a server and connect via VNC. Sometimes I'll open multiple instances of my server, but always from the same IP address because my physical server has only 1 ip address.
Ok, if I have MC open from one instance of my server and try to open it from another instance of the server I get the message alerting me that I'm already logged on from another machine and it asks if I'd like to terminate the connection.
I contacted my server host and explained the issue. They responded that it's probably not an IP check that MultiCharts is using because my IP address does not change no matter how many instances of my server I open (LocalRDP, VNC, etc...).
Is there a way around this to make it work correctly? My open session of MC should not be terminated when I open a 2nd session/instance because it's coming from the same computer.
I can open MC from my laptop 5 times if I wanted to with no problem. But if I try to open it from my desktop while it's open on my laptop then I get terminated. Because the server is truly 1 computer then I shouldn't be getting booted off when opening multiple instances from the server.
Please help.
Joe
Authorized vs Unauthorized
-
Anastassia
- Posts: 179
- Joined: 18 Jan 2010
- Been thanked: 4 times
Dear basscat2
You can open as many instances of MultiCharts as you want within one computer. However, if you try to open another instance on the second machine it will ask you to terminate the connection on the first computer. The policy states that you cannot run 2 instances of MC simultaneously in on-line mode on two different computers under one license.
You can open as many instances of MultiCharts as you want within one computer. However, if you try to open another instance on the second machine it will ask you to terminate the connection on the first computer. The policy states that you cannot run 2 instances of MC simultaneously in on-line mode on two different computers under one license.
Anastassia,
Please read my post.
I am NOT connecting from 2 different computers.
MC is run on a remote server. I access the server using RDP and/or VNC. Sometimes I'll connect using VNC and from within the VNC I'll open an RDP session to give me 2 desktops to work from. This is the SAME Computer/Server. If MC is running on the RDP connection and I try to run it from the VNC connection I get the termination notice. These are NOT different computers.
It would be the equivalent if you had MC running from a computer at home and you connected remotely to your home computer using VNC. Then, if within the VNC connection you established an RDP connection to get you a secondary virtual desktop. MC is still being run from your home computer. This is exactly what I'm doing. Why am I getting a termination notice? The IP is identical and the computer is identical. MC is on the home computer only. The connections to the home computer and subsequent access to MC is what's being denied beyond one instance. Please advise.
J
Please read my post.
I am NOT connecting from 2 different computers.
MC is run on a remote server. I access the server using RDP and/or VNC. Sometimes I'll connect using VNC and from within the VNC I'll open an RDP session to give me 2 desktops to work from. This is the SAME Computer/Server. If MC is running on the RDP connection and I try to run it from the VNC connection I get the termination notice. These are NOT different computers.
It would be the equivalent if you had MC running from a computer at home and you connected remotely to your home computer using VNC. Then, if within the VNC connection you established an RDP connection to get you a secondary virtual desktop. MC is still being run from your home computer. This is exactly what I'm doing. Why am I getting a termination notice? The IP is identical and the computer is identical. MC is on the home computer only. The connections to the home computer and subsequent access to MC is what's being denied beyond one instance. Please advise.
J
-
Bruce DeVault
- Posts: 438
- Joined: 19 Jan 2010
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
I don't think the whole "two desktops" thing (as would be the case for instance with Terminal Server, where could serve up MultiCharts to many users) was likely contemplated as permissible in the licensing mechanism any more than running two (or ten) virtual servers each with their own installation of Windows on the same hardware would have been - in either case they can't "see" each other in that they're not running in the same operating system context, and that's the key issue I think. If the MultiCharts instances can't "see" the other one running locally (because it's on a different "desktop" or whatever the situation is in this specific case), yet, there's another one running already according to the DRM, that would not be permitted for the same reason it wouldn't be permitted on three VMs on the same hardware - that's "the same computer" according to a hardware definition, but not according to a functional one.
Something like GoToMyPC would work if you used this instead of VNC, because that's just one desktop and it's all completely straight forward.
It could be that TS Support may choose to support this specific situation in the future, but you can't assume they will or should or have to - it has to be considered what the ramifications are for instance on someone using Terminal Server to serve many users - should that be permitted? And if not, how is that different than your case technically? It's important that software piracy, which can be a severe and crippling problem for a software company, be controlled by reasonable yet strictly enforced measures. It's important, of course, because it's in all of our interest for TS Support to continue to grow and thrive, to be able to make improvements, and to continue to provide support. In this case, you clearly believe "reasonable" should let you do something that they either didn't think of, or didn't think it was safe to permit because of the ramifications on other cases, and that's the crux of the question, not anyone's misunderstanding of your original report.
It's the VNC software usage that's causing the denial to occur, not MultiCharts, as evidenced by the fact that you can use multiple instances of MultiCharts if you're not using VNC. It may well be that TS Support could decide to allow you to do this, but you can't assume that they will or that it's required, because you've installed something 3rd party that has essentially made it not work, and they could also respond by simply stating that VNC isn't supported.
What you're wanting is a type of virtualization, and many companies struggle with this issue and reach different, though reasonable conclusions. For instance, Microsoft decided that their DRM should limit virtualization (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/133360/v ... ation.html as an example). This isn't just something TS Support has arbitrarily done to deny you something - it's a broad issue and something that has to be given careful thought. Please remember, there can be ramifications beyond your specific case if the licensing or DRM mechanism is changed.
It would be great if they can very specifically detect the situation you're describing, and decide to specifically allow it, but we can't assume that unless/until they decide to change both their policy and their mechanism to permit it.
It could be that I have misunderstood you (but I hope that I haven't) - I've posted the above comments in the spirit of helping you understand that this issue may not be quite so simple, and that there's possibly not just a simple "bug" here but there are some potentially broad issues. I think it would be great if they can find a specific way to open it up to allow you to do what you're wanting, but I just don't assume that will be possible because there are other things they will have to assess to make this decision beyond just your case. Hopefully they can...
Something like GoToMyPC would work if you used this instead of VNC, because that's just one desktop and it's all completely straight forward.
It could be that TS Support may choose to support this specific situation in the future, but you can't assume they will or should or have to - it has to be considered what the ramifications are for instance on someone using Terminal Server to serve many users - should that be permitted? And if not, how is that different than your case technically? It's important that software piracy, which can be a severe and crippling problem for a software company, be controlled by reasonable yet strictly enforced measures. It's important, of course, because it's in all of our interest for TS Support to continue to grow and thrive, to be able to make improvements, and to continue to provide support. In this case, you clearly believe "reasonable" should let you do something that they either didn't think of, or didn't think it was safe to permit because of the ramifications on other cases, and that's the crux of the question, not anyone's misunderstanding of your original report.
It's the VNC software usage that's causing the denial to occur, not MultiCharts, as evidenced by the fact that you can use multiple instances of MultiCharts if you're not using VNC. It may well be that TS Support could decide to allow you to do this, but you can't assume that they will or that it's required, because you've installed something 3rd party that has essentially made it not work, and they could also respond by simply stating that VNC isn't supported.
What you're wanting is a type of virtualization, and many companies struggle with this issue and reach different, though reasonable conclusions. For instance, Microsoft decided that their DRM should limit virtualization (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/133360/v ... ation.html as an example). This isn't just something TS Support has arbitrarily done to deny you something - it's a broad issue and something that has to be given careful thought. Please remember, there can be ramifications beyond your specific case if the licensing or DRM mechanism is changed.
It would be great if they can very specifically detect the situation you're describing, and decide to specifically allow it, but we can't assume that unless/until they decide to change both their policy and their mechanism to permit it.
It could be that I have misunderstood you (but I hope that I haven't) - I've posted the above comments in the spirit of helping you understand that this issue may not be quite so simple, and that there's possibly not just a simple "bug" here but there are some potentially broad issues. I think it would be great if they can find a specific way to open it up to allow you to do what you're wanting, but I just don't assume that will be possible because there are other things they will have to assess to make this decision beyond just your case. Hopefully they can...