Jump to content
Welcome to our new Citrix community!
  • 0

FSLogix Profile container or Citrix UPM Profile container?


Question

I'm wondering where people are on this questions. Which container solution do you prefer in your architecture going forward for your profile management?

 

I have issues with both of these preventing me from adopting either.

FSLogix:

  • Stability issues, vdisk dismount errors, corruptions etc.
  • Multiple vendors involved for support.

Citrix UPM:

  • No exclusion of folders - all subfolders in the chosen folder are included in the vdisk.
  • No multi-session support.
  • Is it Future-proof with FSLogix now being free.
Link to comment

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 2

I have done many many engagements with FSLogix and it is our go-to solution for profile management - rock solid and I have zero hesitation in recommending it

 

I wrote a little piece about this a while back:

https://jkindon.com/2019/06/12/profile-management-in-2019-what-how-why/

 

FSLogix isnt just about profiles, it opens a world of capability that you simply cannot get with anything else

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 1

Ron

 

bear i mind that a lot of the GPO Settings for FSLogix are really Preferences, so if you're making lots of changes in GPO during testing, they stay "tattooed" in the registry.

What I normally do is stop the FSLogix Apps Service, delete the registry key HKLM\SOFTWARE\FSLogix\Profiles\ then reboot the machine before trying a new GPO setting. (this being a test Citrix XenApp server/VDI Desktop, not production)

 

Regards

 

Ken

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
4 hours ago, James Kindon said:

I have done many many engagements with FSLogix and it is our go-to solution for profile management - rock solid and I have zero hesitation in recommending it

 

I wrote a little piece about this a while back:

https://jkindon.com/2019/06/12/profile-management-in-2019-what-how-why/

 

FSLogix isnt just about profiles, it opens a world of capability that you simply cannot get with anything else

 

excellent Article James ! Very informational and applicable to my current situation. I think you convinced me to try it in POC for our next Citrix environment :)

 

Thanks for sharing !

Link to comment
  • 0
On 10/21/2019 at 5:06 AM, James Kindon said:

I have done many many engagements with FSLogix and it is our go-to solution for profile management - rock solid and I have zero hesitation in recommending it

 

I wrote a little piece about this a while back:

https://jkindon.com/2019/06/12/profile-management-in-2019-what-how-why/

 

FSLogix isnt just about profiles, it opens a world of capability that you simply cannot get with anything else

 

Hi James, 

We're building out a new server 2016 Citrix environment using FSLogix profile containers.  What we're seeing is in the first session the profile loads fine, but if you try to open another session on a different server it fails with:

[10:00:13.574][tid:00000e40.000012f8][INFO]             Status set to 1: Cannot load user's profile
[10:00:13.574][tid:00000e40.000012f8][INFO]             Error set to 33
[10:00:13.574][tid:00000e40.000012f8][ERROR:00000021]   c:\agent_02\_work\3\s\libraries\frx.servicelib\frx.service.vhdprofileprovider.cpp(449): frx.service.vhdprofileprovider.cpp(449): [WCODE: 0x00000021] Cloud not acquire an exclusive lock for vhd(x): C:\ProgramData\FSLogix\Proxy\Win2K16\Profile_TestVHDX (The process cannot access the file because another process has locked a portion of the file.

 

We do have the FSLogix policies to allow concurrent sessions and multiple connections, using profile type "RW with fallback to RO" which should allow for loading the VHDx on multiple servers at once.  Have you run into this before?  

Link to comment
  • 0

thanks for the replies, I wanted to give an update in case it will help anyone else out.  to fix this: 

In the GPO I used the variable %Username% for the “SID directory name matching string” and “SID directory pattern string” (I think these values need to be the same).  This creates a unique directory for each user in the Cloud Cache and Proxy Directories:

In the original GPO template the consultants provided us, these values were set to %OSName% which put all the VHD’s in the same directory named “Win2k16” and was causing the file lock issue. 

Link to comment
  • 0

FSLOGIX VHDX share session opened and file locked, this leads to temp profile creation or citrix VDI is not launching.

 

We have DELL ISILON share drive used for FSLogix profile management. Whenever few user's log off and login back, local profile gets created or unable to launch the Citrix VDI, when I checked the VDI and found below logs from programdata FSLogix log folder : [ERROR:00000020]   Open vhd(x) failed, file is locked.  Retrying 12 time(s) at 5 second intervals (The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process.).

 

Tried to disconnect the opened file from the ISILON but nothing helped.

 

only solution here we have is to rename the old profile and login back into VDI which will create new FSLogix profile. this is not correct solution I know.

 

Now this issue making our production users big issue and down time.

 

I need Citrix team advise to fix this issue ASAP.

Link to comment
  • 0

Greetings to everyone, just put some information here regarding FSLogix, I recently worked on a migration to this technology and we found an important compatibility problem, in this case FSLogix is not compatible with UAC-VirtualStore, many applications (mainly legacy or old) , they try to write to protected areas in Windows, such as ProgramFiles or C:\Windows\Syswow64... UAC-VirtualStore gets around this problem by redirecting the writing and reading of these files in the user profile in %LocalAppdata%\VirtualStore, but when using FSLogix this Windows feature stops working which ends up causing a lot of failure in the business application, so I recommend paying attention to this point before going to FSLogix, by the way I opened a ticket with Microsoft and they just confirmed the lack of compatibility between the two technologies from MS itself.

Link to comment

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
×
×
  • Create New...