James Kindon
-
Posts
1,346 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
66
Content Type
Forums
Articles
Labs
Videos
TechZone
Citrix Community Articles
Events
Profiles
Posts posted by James Kindon
-
-
I've outlined the process above already on how to get around that one -> you have to line up the versions then upgrade
-
yes, exactly this. OS doesn't matter, it's the StoreFront version
-
You can export storefront settings to a file and then import them to guarantee identical configurations. The process I would take there is
Build new Servers -> deploy identical version of StoreFront to that which is in prod -> Export/Import StoreFront configuration -> Upgrade new StoreFront to appropriate release
The limitation with the export/import is that the versions MUST be identical https://docs.citrix.com/en-us/storefront/1912-ltsr/export-import-storefront-config.html
-
This can help with the automation of it
https://github.com/JamesKindon/Citrix/tree/master/Migration Scripts/MigrateMCSToManual
-
That is still the way to handle it
-
You should likely be configuring the zero touch experience for outlook profile creation (assuming that is in place already?)
For the other issue, you should open a separate post i would think
-
Ah fair play, just create a new DG - I don't think they can be switched (might be a backend way but likely faster just to create a new one)
-
1 hour ago, Artimus Aunos said:
Is there another way or not? We don't have to upgrade new VDA with restrictions for other applications.
If that is your issue, then that's the option set in that article...
-
-
That is studio ? Click on Delivery Groups and go from there ?
-
A pooled random desktop isn't assigned until the user launches the desktop
Pre-Launch is only for applications
You may need to go a static allocation method for the desktops so that you know which user has which
-
You already have access to Studio if you have DaaS - you need to go into the DaaS service and select the studio drop down, then change your delivery groups
-
They do note that it is a work in progress - they will be able to control this with regardless of where it sits in the registry, there are always ways ?
-
Ditch library subscriptions and use traditional studio based options - so much easier, so much more control, no fluff
-
1
-
-
You should look at fslogix AppMasking for this. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/fslogix/application-masking-rules-ht#rule-types
You can use redirection rules, which, on a per user basis, would redirect from the programdata location into the user profile.
Once there, you can roam the data accordingly with UPM
-
Have pushed the differencing disk concerns back to the product teams again as they are valid
-
1
-
-
You can have a crack at resetting it https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/alter-master-key-transact-sql?view=sql-server-ver16 never had to do it though
backup and restore is likely wiser
-
For this scenario you would want to turn upm off entirely and optimise the default user profile - it doesn’t sound like you need profile management at all
there are other factors that come into this around provisioning methods etc, but effectively it sounds like you want the following
user logs in -> default profile created -> policy controls all settings -> user logs off -> everything deleted -> repeat
This is all local profile style operations - if using UPM you would be looking at mandatory profiles (have a google)
-
Yeah this process is horrible and has been for a long time… amazingly it’s been somewhat optimised in multi session windows 10 but not enterprise… ridiculous really
There is a new feature in the latest release that I have haven’t tested which appears to be the start of trying to address this issue https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/fslogix/whats-new
That’s about all you can play with in a safe fashion
-
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
-
2
-
-
I always liked my customers too much to put them on Windows 11 - so nope ?
-
https://jkindon.com/the-why-does-it-of-citrix-wem-cache/ <- the product has some fixes since this post was released
-
You need to go looking at the log files for WEM in that case - its a pretty simple model of OU -> config Set
-
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
Deploying Per User Apps - Non persistent desktop
in XenDesktop 7.x
Posted
This is something Container technology can definitely help with from a roaming perspective. Citrix Profile Management has some selective controls for what goes where if capacity and performance is a consideration
Where possible, it's best to try and find the machine installers - a quick google shows
For postman: https://learning.postman.com/docs/administration/managing-enterprise-deployment/
For Grasshopper - worth asking the question directly to the vendor
Per User isn't great in non-persistent environments - I have dealt with customers that block it (AppMasking, or Application Whitelisting etc) to avoid it coming onboard.