FSLogix vs UPM 2209

[Martijn]

Hello,

 

We have a lot of issues with FSLogix and since MS took over development and bug fixing is really slow. So I'm looking into UPM, because I can see OneDrive is supported now which wasn't the case before.

 

Is there any reason to still prefer FSLogix over UPM in terms of functionality? Or are they about the same right now?

 

Thanks.

 

[Fe Land]

Tried both methods FSL and UPM. And did not find in the UPM the possibility of direct access for a single session VDI (screenshot at attachment). Therefore, we chose FSL. Interesting, will Citrix make a similar type of direct access to the UPM container?

[Fe Land]

8 hours ago, James Kindon said:

UPM doesn't have these options ... and isn't needed - the result is the same

The result not the same.
In our opinion, this is the option that needed in the UPM too.
When a user 'Sign out' current single session, he must wait until the RW file is merged into the original container file. However, user does not know how long this process will take. And if starts a new session, before the end of the merging of containers, he will receive another file of the RO type. But in direct access mode (FSL), the user does not face this situation.

8 hours ago, James Kindon said:

it's a different architecture

What principal difference?

[James Kindon]

11 hours ago, Fe Land said:

The result not the same.
In our opinion, this is the option that needed in the UPM too.
When a user 'Sign out' current single session, he must wait until the RW file is merged into the original container file. However, user does not know how long this process will take. And if starts a new session, before the end of the merging of containers, he will receive another file of the RO type. But in direct access mode (FSL), the user does not face this situation.

What principal difference?

All UPM containers use a RW model under the hood yes. There should be minimal delay on merge of containers unless there is under performing storage

 

I do agree that it would be better to not use differencing disks by default (and have expressed this previously via some channels but have no idea if it will be actioned) - i will tag this post to the dev team

[James Kindon]

So there are a couple of things to consider 

 

I did a write up a while back delving into the two here:
https://jkindon.com/citrix-upm-and-fslogix-containers/

 

The trajectory of UPM is awesome, you can see how much focus there is with quarterly feature releases per below 

https://jkindon.com/the-evolution-of-citrix-profile-management/

 

OneDrive was the last frontier really 

 

I firmly believe that UPM is the superior solution in terms of functionality, support and focus, however, you won’t make a bad decision by sticking with FSLogix either

 

my discussions with customers was pretty much anything net new was UPM containers where I would have positioned FSLogix before, but also always delving into the need for containers at all, and for those that had fslogix, there was no reason to rip it out by any means 

[James Kindon]

Have pushed the differencing disk concerns back to the product teams again as they are valid 

[Scott Bowling]

On 11/21/2022 at 9:31 PM, James Kindon said:

my discussions with customers was pretty much anything net new was UPM containers where I would have positioned FSLogix before, but also always delving into the need for containers at all, and for those that had fslogix, there was no reason to rip it out by any means 

 

We are preparing\researching which path to take with our Windows 11 non-persistent VDI We implemented FSL for Windows 10 and have been pretty happy with it. The concern is that Microsoft seems to be showing little interest in FSL development which might be an issue down the road. Deploying on UPM might be a safer choice.

 

Thoughts?

[James Kindon]

Microsoft definitely care about it, and we should see features increase in the not-too-distant future, however Microsoft vs Citrix on the profile management maturity, release cadence, feature development, bug fix front.... Citrix has always won that race.

 

Again, personally I like UPM and where it is going/how it has been going, but plenty of happy customers on FSLogix as well - I am on the fence, I don't think you can go wrong either way - whatever aligns with your project/supportability/longevity of your EUC roadmaps etc

[James Kindon]

On 11/25/2022 at 11:31 PM, Fe Land said:

Tried both methods FSL and UPM. And did not find in the UPM the possibility of direct access for a single session VDI (screenshot at attachment). Therefore, we chose FSL. Interesting, will Citrix make a similar type of direct access to the UPM container?

 

UPM doesn't have these options, it's a different architecture and isn't needed - the result is the same

[Scott Bowling]

Have you worked with Win11, FSLogix, and OneDrive Sync? According to https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/sync-vdi-support this configuration is not supported and our Microsoft Technical rep told me it may be a little buggy.

[James Kindon]

I always liked my customers too much to put them on Windows 11 - so nope ?

[Scott Bowling]

19 hours ago, James Kindon said:

I always liked my customers too much to put them on Windows 11 - so nope ?

I wish my leadership had the same opinion.

[Stefan Wielers]

Has anyone ever done a migration from FSLogix to CTX UPM Prof./Office Container?

I think I will wait for V2212 and then test, because after the update from V2203 to V2209 we had problems with FSLogix u. CTX UPM (ntuser.dat was deleted by UPM in FSLogix container when logging off, if UPM service was disabled there were no problems. Multi-Session Write Back is active and also needed).
Maybe a good time to go back to only one Profile mgmt. solution -> CTX UPM.

 

[Martijn]

Thanks for all the replies, very helpful. But indeed not being able to do a direct profile attach is a bit of a con for UPM. I rather lock users to a single session. Difference disk are just annoying and cause too much issues and overhead in my opinion.

 

Also, the public preview of FSLogix now has recycle bin roaming and vdisk compacting which are very nice additions. 

[Fe Land]

On 12/9/2022 at 1:57 PM, James Kindon said:

Have pushed the differencing disk concerns back to the product teams again as they are valid 

Is there any new information from the developers?

[James Kindon]

On 6/6/2023 at 7:00 PM, Fe Land said:

On 12/9/2022 at 9:57 PM, James Kindon said:

 

Is there any new information from the developers

Soon, very soon ?