Classic Printers in Google Cloud Print Replicating

[Rick Franz]

I am running in a Windows 2008 R2 network environment with Windows classic printers. The printers are loaded on a print server. I set up Google Cloud Print by logging into Google Cloud Print on that computer with a print admin account. I then selected only the printers I wanted to add as available Google Cloud print printers (primarily for our Chromebooks).  I initially added 16 printers through the Chrome settings for the print admin user under the Google Cloud Print section. I then shared those printers out with the appropriate groups. All seemed good and the appropriate users could print to the appropriate printers. The next day I logged into the Google Cloud Print manager to review the printers and the number of printers had replicated. Some printers were listed twice some three times. One of the duplicates for each printer was shown as "Currently offline". Google Cloud Print also created printers for all Windows printers on the print server (not just the ones I selected to be Google Cloud Print printers on initial setup). I went from originally having the 16 printers I selected to now seeing over 100 printers in the Google Cloud Print manager. The other issue is the copy of a printer that appeared as 'offline' was the one that was shared. Has anyone else experienced this behavior? How do I get Google Cloud Print to stop replicating the printers and get back to only seeing the 16 I want set as Google Cloud Printers, so they are easier to administer?

Thanks.

[gko...@hughsonschools.org]

Sorry to see after 2 years no reply or fix!  Bumping for my district, please help

[pri...@helena.k12.mt.us]

My district is having an identical issue. Just on a much larger scale.

[pri...@helena.k12.mt.us]

Were you ever able to fix this?

[TS]

IMHO the problem description suggests that the print server is using DHCP. The GCP server and printers should be using unique static IP addresses outside of the dynamic range of IP addresses managed by the LAN's DHCP server. If I am correct then after correcting the IP addresses I have mentioned, turn off the GCP server, delete the old printer entries on each client Chrome device (e.g. Chromebook) then switch the GCP server back on and redo the sharing task one last time.

[Franz, Rick]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I should have added that information to my original post.  The Windows print server is not using DHCP.  All Windows Classic printers have unique, static IP addresses.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:24 PM, TS <terence...@gmail.com> wrote:

IMHO the problem description suggests that the print server is using DHCP and perhaps even some of the printers are as well. The GCP server and printers should be using unique static IP addresses outside of the dynamic range of IP addresses managed by the LAN's DHCP server. If I am correct then after correcting the IP addresses I have mentioned, turn of the server, delete the old printer entries on each Chrome device then switch the server back on and redo the sharing task one last time.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Google Cloud Print Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/gcp-developers/52T_5bekvQ4/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to gcp-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/gcp-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gcp-developers/e5463610-bee6-42f9-adb1-10ba6e2ff4cb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Rick Franz

Network Administrator

Waunakee Community School District

Office: 608-849-1863 Ext.1502

Mobile: 608-206-7371

[TS]

In that case, this will be my last post in this thread: This web page seems to represent a very close match to your problem but there are differences so I am not sure whether the reported solution will also work for you. The solution is described at the very end (on 27 Oct 2016 this amounted to post number six).