C Drive Emulation In Terminal Server

I remember a restriction on net use that said you cannot map to a c: drive - only Citrix could.

I will have my client try it and see if ti works.

If I understand you correctly, the users can't share the same file. If this is true, you're out of luck; you cannot assign some path to an existing drive and certainly not to a physical drive (you would have to remove the drive letter from the physical volume which will crash the terminal server).

The thing you mention about Citrix, the last experience I had with Citrix was that it maps the local drive to free drive letters (which is also possible by using DriveShare (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/321711/), although it's harder to implement).

I was wondering, if it's your software, can't you rewrite the routine to point to the user temp directory?

By way of explanation, the software is an SQL Server application that uses data link files to point to the database that is to be used.  It is a multi-practice practice management system.  When a user logs in, a list of supported therapy practices is presented and the user selects one.  The system then copies the appropriate data link file(datalink01.udl - datalink10.udl) to datalink.udl in a directory on c:.  Each of those data links points to a different SQL Server database - one for each different practice.  

That works just fine when a user has a local c: drive.  Each local drive is, indeed, unique to that user and that session.  With dumb terminals there is no c: drive.  We need to emulate on the terminal server in a share dedicated to each unique login user ID so each user ends up with a separate c: drive (mapped to a share).  I have often done this with a u: drive mapping but not a c: drive mapping.

The system was not originally designed to be a terminal server application.  This is only the second custoemr who is running it on that platform, and the first has PC's with C: drives, not dumb terminals.

If we do not have a unique C: drive, every user will be using the terminal server's C: drive and will be stepping on other users' data link changes, creating havoc.

The location of the UDL is hard coded in several hundred different ADO.Net SQL connection objects in the system.  I can handle the new location in code,but it would be far less time-consuming is I could simply map a network share to the c: drive letter.  This is the solution I am looking for - a way for each terminal server user to have a unique C: drive - unique because it is a unique network share.

I never said this would be easy - that is why it is worth 500 points to me!

I've given it some thought - and along with your follow up explanation, I simply don't see a way of accomplishing this with your setup...

Sorry I couldn't come up with something else for you...

~sirbounty

Thanks for taking the time to consider it.

Can you set an environment variable to change the path the program writes to and store it in each user's profile? This would require slight coding changes but that would be your best bet.

didn't read the last sentence in your last post... sorry. Didn't see the several hundred connection objects statement.

I would defintely take the time to make the UDL user definable somewhere so that it is never hard coded.

It was probably a bad programming practice to begin with.

My only other suggestion would be a small ram drive that can be defined as C:

Sorry about the extra work. But it will be a timesaver in the future.

I hope this helps !

What exactly is the path that's hard coded?

Perhaps a 'Search and Replace' on everything with "C:\datalink.udl"?

There is something you can try that might work but I suggest you do the work on a weekend and take a full backup before you start.

It is possible to change the drive leter of the system drive on your terminal server, but as you can guess Microsoft dont reccomend it but I have done it in the past to secure TS installations further but always just after i have built the server not after everything is installed.
 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/223188

That will then free up the drive letter for mapping, alternativly the version of Vm from Microsoft supports virtual drives.

>> It is possible to change the drive leter of the system drive on your terminal server, but as you can guess Microsoft dont reccomend it but I have done it in the
>> past to secure TS installations further but always just after i have built the server not after everything is installed.

Yes you would have to reinstall almost all the applications on the system ... not something I would like to do.
I also had NT 4.0 TSE with MetaFrame running from M: instead of C:

My question was really very simple - can I map a drive letter C: to a network share on a Windows 2000 Terminal Server to give a dumb terminal a unique virtual C: drive?

No application changes, no terminal server reconfiguration, no additional hardware.

If someone has a solution that meets that criteria, please feel free to offer it and you will earn 500 points. If not, I'll withdraw the question.

To "shawngilbert":

I really do not care about the points.  I pay for unlimited points so they are basically irrelevant to me.

I am looking for a solution.

I am a Microsoft Certified Partner with a Network Infrastructure competency and a certified Small Business Specialist.  I have also been developing application software for almost 40 years.  When I post a question to Experts Exchange, I do so because I believe there are people in the group with valuable and extensive knowledge in the respective area and that they can save a lot of time and research when looking for answers to unusual problems.

I am more troubled by the slew of comments that suggest things like asking a customer to reconfigure the TS boot drive to another drive letter, or the gratuitous opinion that the application is coded badly by an individual who offers no suitable, practical solution to the stated problem.

I run a consulting business and I shudder to think these people would make such suggestions or comments to customers who pay for their advice and guidance.

I am accepting your answer - the 500 points are yours.  Yours was the most mature and useful answer that  got.

portdata while I appreciate the points, I was under the impression that sirbounty had also pointed this out from the start.  Perhaps not in the same wording, but given his experience, I have often found that he is very talented at overcoming the impossible; he has helped me many times.

"talented at overcoming the impossible"

Well, I don't know about that!  :^)

shawn, don't worry about it...you came right out and gave the author the answer they were looking for.

Thanx,
~sirbounty

What I read from sirbounty's last comment was that he did not see a way of accomplishing the task.  I did not accept his answer as the solution or final answer because I was still hoping for a solution from someone else.

In the spirit of fair play perhaps we should have split the points, but as I indicated to you this is not about the points for me. It is about the solution, so I did not reflect at all on that issue.

I would not stand in the way of a point split - or take a position either way.

I really appreciate the fact that both of you are willing to spend your time helping others reach their end goals, or at least to realize that their goals are possibly unattainable.

Right now, I still have a problem to solve.  That is what I am planning to spend my time on.  If either or both of you have a strong feeling on a proper way to deal with the administrative points issue, pelase feel free to make it happen and I will agree if asked.

And please, both of you, stay in there and keep helping those in need and with far less knowledge and resources at times when they really benefit from your advice.

>> I am more troubled by the slew of comments that suggest things like asking a customer to reconfigure the TS boot drive to another drive letter, or the
>> gratuitous opinion that the application is coded badly by an individual who offers no suitable, practical solution to the stated problem.

>> I run a consulting business and I shudder to think these people would make such suggestions or comments to customers who pay for their advice
>> and guidance.

Just to get things straight, you pay Experts Exchange for your points, but the experts here do not see anything of your money. Everyone here is basically a volunteer and doing their best to help you.
You're posting a problem and ask for a solution. I'm sorry you did not get a solution, but you did get the correct answer and we all tried to help you out with a workaround. I agree with SysExpert that writing configuration files to the root of a harddisk is bad coding practice; if a workstation or server in a company environment is correctly secured, the user doesn't even has permission to write files to the root directory. Microsoft has guidelines for writing software for a secured multi-user NT-based environment. If you don't follow these guidelines, sooner or later you'll run into problems.

I think it's a bit insulting that one of the solutions that will work (rewriting parts of your software to function correctly in a secured multi-user NT-based environment) is called inmature. This solution will also help you in the future to get things working correctly on e.g. Windows Vista.
I'm a software developer as well and my customers demand that my software fits in their environment, not the other way round.