VPN connection to Multi-User

[oldcelt]

We have a VPN and a PC on the LAN for Actinic. How can we set up the system so several users can log in and use Actinic remotely?

Obviously, we already have set up concurrent VPN usage.

Hope someone can offer a bit of help on this

[gabrielcrowe]

VPN stands for virtual private networking, and ISNT virtual desktop, or virtual sessions. Not to mention that Actinic is a single user experience. What your asking for is a way to log in over a LAN?

But how about this:
http://www.interact-studio.co.uk/aca...r_Flavour.html

[oldcelt]

VPN stands for virtual private networking, and ISNT virtual desktop, or virtual sessions. Not to mention that Actinic is a single user experience. What your asking for is a way to log in over a LAN?

But how about this:
http://www.interact-studio.co.uk/aca...r_Flavour.html

Thanks for replying - however, perhaps I haven't expressed myself very well.

We know what a VPN is and use it already for other purposes. We are also prepared to install the multi-user version of Actinic. What I need to know is how two or three users can log into Multi-User Actinic via the VPN.

Ken

[dallen]

If I understand your question correctly - you have multi-user actinic, but only 1 PC on your LAN with it installed on? In which case it won't work.

You'll need an individual PC on the LAN for each person to login to an individual instance of Actinic (with a shared Sites folder on a server or one of the PCs).

You can then use Remote Desktop and each user can login remotely to their individual desktop.

OR - if you're clever, remote users can have Actinic instances installed on their local machines, but the path to the sites folder will take them across the VPN to a sites folder on the PC on the LAN. That should work (but haven't tested it - we use the first example (Remote Desktop))

[gabrielcrowe]

OR - if you're clever, remote users can have Actinic instances installed on their local machines, but the path to the sites folder will take them across the VPN to a sites folder on the PC on the LAN. That should work (but haven't tested it - we use the first example (Remote Desktop))

This will be INSANELY SLOW, please dont do that.

[oldcelt]

If I understand your question correctly - you have multi-user actinic, but only 1 PC on your LAN with it installed on? In which case it won't work.

You'll need an individual PC on the LAN for each person to login to an individual instance of Actinic (with a shared Sites folder on a server or one of the PCs).

You can then use Remote Desktop and each user can login remotely to their individual desktop.

OR - if you're clever, remote users can have Actinic instances installed on their local machines, but the path to the sites folder will take them across the VPN to a sites folder on the PC on the LAN. That should work (but haven't tested it - we use the first example (Remote Desktop))

What's the speed like using your method (the one you have in use).

Actinet looks like a reasonable alternative (we haven't bought Actinic yet so can choose between muli-user and Business). However, Actinet looks to me to be less secure than the VPN solution?

Ken

[dallen]

It would probably be a fair bit slower - but if you don't want indvidual PCs on the LAN for each user it would be your only option.

Also - When installing multi-user make sure you map a network drive to the shared sites folder on each client - if you set the clients to point at '//server/actinic/sites' rather than 'z:/sites' you will have issues - for some reason the clients will read '//server' as '/server' in certain instances and will not work! All clients should have the sites folder mapped as the same drive letter.

EDIT:

What's the speed like using your method (the one you have in use).

It's fine - just the slight lag you'll always get using RD. But as the clients and the sites folder are all on the same LAN all the heavy work is done there and only the end result is passed back acros t'interweb. As Gabriel says - if you use the second option you'll take a noticeable hit on speed as there will be a LOT more data being sent back and forth...

[oldcelt]

Well, that's a lot of very valuable information and I'm most grateful. I think the individual PCs on the LAN sound like the best solution. We already have two PCs which can be part of the setup and that will do for now.

Again, many thanks.

Ken