Guido Beijderwellen

Teamviewer 7 Won't Connect

4 posts in this topic

I used to work with Teamviewer to connect to my home servers over the Internet. This worked flawlessly with previous versions of Teamviewer, but starting with version 7 I no longer can connect to WHS. All other systems (Windows 7, Windows 2003 STD etc) work, only WHS refuses.

A connection is made when connecting Teamviewer to the "partner" and the connection window minimizes, but the Teamviewer connection screen does not pop up.

The strange thing is that when I connect to WHS using a plain RDP session and then also start Teamviewer, it does work and the Teamviewer connect window does pop up.

Does anybody else uses Tramviewer 7 to connect to their WHS? And does it work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upgrade to a WGS Supporter Account to remove this ad.

I don't know if this helps, but I had to upgrade all my computers to version 7. Its not compatible with version 6 on either end. I don't use TeamViewer on my server, so this may not be useful. I like TeamViewer, i just never saw much use for it on the server, since I can access it within the WHS framework (RDP/Web)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I use teamviewer 7 on my home server as i can never get the web site connection to work through the internet. I have just tested 7 out as I had updated it both ends the other week as I also use Teamviewer on my mums laptop as they live some 150 miles away so IT support comes this way for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guido - Got the same problem... just installed TeamViewer 7 on my WHS v1 and when I connect from my laptop (running TeamViewer 7 too), it accepts the connection but no remote control window comes up. I suspect a firewall issue somewhere (WHS, Router)? Did you manage to solve yours? Any suggestions from others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



Upgrade to a WGS Supporter Account to remove this ad.



  • Posts

    • Like I said, you won't get the combined (aggregate) bandwidth to a single destination.   Torrenting makes multiple outgoing and can receive multiple incoming connections to and from multiple seeders and leechers (behaving more like the load-balanced scenario) in the best-case scenario, so it's one of the few applications that scale fairly well with WAN load-balancing, and if you're just downloading data, the torrent application can reassemble the whole torrent from the randomly received chunks from each seeder.  Torrent was almost designed to benefit from WAN load-balancing because of the way the P2P network was conceived. ...but that wouldn't work for streaming media or online gaming or VoIP where there's no mechanism to deal with out-of-order packets being sent and received, or the fact that it's still asymmetrically routed -- in that instance, you're still limited to the bandwidth of a single connection, you can just make more of them at a time on different paths.   802.3ad or LACP (Dynamic Link Aggregation) requires switching and routing hardware that's also LACP-compliant in order for it to work, but in that case, would be more like the aforementioned ISP IMUX connection than WAN load-balancing.   Your SpeedTest results are probably from burstable traffic over one connection, because a single SpeedTest run will only use one connection during the course of that test run, which is why it only shows a single public IP address. Sustained bandwidth testing with something like iPerf will show a more accurate picture.   Speedify would pretty much have to be tunneling all traffic as the "first hop" and reassembling traffic before going back out to the public Internet so that their VPN endpoint becomes your new public IP address out on the Internet; in essence becoming an ISP over an ISP -- if that's what it's actually doing.  While that may solve one issue, it would probably cause a drastic increase in latency to do so, and I doubt it would support streaming media very well.
    • Hi, Thanks for the reply. I understand what you mean but then that's like having 2 DC's having DHCP to issue IP in case one goes down, so both DHCP scopes would have to issue same IP address to same client or they would run out of addresses. But anyway thanks for clarifying, I was getting really frustrated about not being able to solve this because I was understanding that the clients would not leave the network when the DC is down and authentication takes place at RODC. Thanks a lot.
    • Well your right and wrong at the same time, i tested the idea using a tp-link loadbalancer and while kt didnt work on websites, for torrents/netflex it worked perefctly simple messirment's of speeds on speedtest.net got me the combined speeds as well and thats without using the 802.3ad protocol which from what i been reading makes it works perfectly long story short, even if i am not able to use the "full pipe" in all applications, it make hell of a diffrance from the plain single connection   note: i think that adding a vpn layer will even solve the multipath problem, thats what speedify and others are doing to get the combined speed
    • Yeah, mine stopped working also, but this time the communicator would allow connection to the server.
      But the automated backups were not occurring. I had to re-setup the folders associated with the computer "Customize Backup For This Computer" and then the automated backups worked again. Apparently there is an option for an anniversary clean install. Then install the connector.
      I think that would be the best option. But definitely a pain in the butt. Let us know how it goes.
      Shane
      Sydney, Australia      
    • Depends on what your storage requirements are going to be.   I personally favor RAID-10 (mirrored stripe) arrays because of the lack of a need for parity, but it's not particularly storage efficient, and with your current setup, you'd have only 4TBs (3.63TiBs) of storage space available (half of an 8TB stripe due to mirroring), in which a minimum 160GBs of that 4TBs is used for the C: drive if you partition the volume during installation. WIth 4 disks, you could do RAID-5, which would give you 6TBs (5.4TiBs) of storage space (because 2TBs is used for RAID stripe parity), but then there's the parity performance penalty and the higher risk of an unrecoverable read error (URE) killing your array and losing your data if you're not using enterprise drives.   ...or you could try Storage Spaces, I guess.
  • Popular Contributors