ZOMBIE THREAD! So if you are already redirecting, and I'm *assuming* to a Windows 20xx server, what's wrong with using the quotas on those shares? 2003: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/datacenter/apply-quotas-with-individual-file-shares-with-windows-server-2003-r2/224 2008: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd163561.aspx
That said...there are better (not free) 3rd party utilities for this. - WJR On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Wimberly <[email protected]>wrote: > For all of us who still redirect "My Documents" to a UNC network location; > What would be a better method to force the backup of a user's documents and > yet still provide a user quota on the amount of data they utilize? > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM, William Robbins <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Thanks again good sir! :) >> >> >> - WJR >> >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Webster <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Here is my English slang lesson from James:**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Pants = rubbish**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> A bit pants = a bit rubbish**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> The official line on its usage...**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> *It has been an all-purpose term of disapproval among young people in >>> the UK during the middle to late nineties. It first turned up in print in >>> 1994, in pieces that indicate it was popularised by DJs on the BBC’s radio >>> pop channel, Radio 1, most probably by Simon Mayo, though the finger is >>> often pointed at Zoë Ball. ... But there’s evidence that the word in this >>> sense is somewhat older, and that it comes from student slang. Graham >>> Diamond, of the Oxford English Dictionary, tells me that he came across it >>> at university about two years earlier, and actually used it in slogans on >>> posters advertising bands around January 1993.***** >>> >>> There's not really many bits of English slang I can think of that >>> replace words such as pathetic - you hear kids these days calling things >>> "lame", but to be fair, I don't think you could go much further wrong than >>> the aforementioned "pants". "Pear-shaped" means a disaster, which you also >>> might find appropriate. "Piss-poor" is another good term for something >>> rubbish (although possibly mildly offensive). "Naff" isn't bad either >>> (although it means mildly rubbish, rather than completely). "Bollocks" can >>> also mean bad, in opposition to "dog's bollocks" which means fantastic.* >>> *** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I also asked about the phrase “ugly red-headed step child” and was told >>> to stay a long way away from that phrase over there lest I wind up in jail! >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Thanks**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Webster**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *William Robbins >>> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 9:36 AM >>> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Home drives**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I'm stealing that. So is pants the operative, or does it have to be >>> "bit pants? :)**** >>> >>> >>> **** >>> >>> >>> - WJR**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:39 AM, James Rankin <[email protected]> >>> wrote:**** >>> >>> That's a bit pants then (that means *rubbish*, for all you Americans >>> out there - except Webster who has been thoroughly educated in British >>> slang). Yet another reason to manage the GPO stuff through AppSense and >>> take it away from the GPO engine itself.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Cheers,**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> JR**** >>> >>> On 10 May 2013 12:31, Webster <[email protected]> wrote:**** >>> >>> That is my understanding.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Thanks**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Webster**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *James Rankin >>> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 6:28 AM **** >>> >>> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Home drives**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> What, you mean if you set a home drive or profile path it puts it into >>> synchronous mode regardless of where it was set?**** >>> >>> On 10 May 2013 12:24, Webster <[email protected]> wrote:**** >>> >>> From what I found out it applies whether the settings are done via ADUC >>> or GPO/GPP and regardless of Windows version.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Thanks**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Webster**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *James Rankin >>> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 6:15 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Home drives**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Nice one....Ok, so that's all for WinXP and 2003 though.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Does anyone know offhand how it behaves when ADUC Profile stuff is set >>> for Win7/2008R2? I'm going to go digging but seeing as though it's Friday >>> afternoon and I'm stuffed full of lunch I guess I'll see if anyone can >>> chime in and save me the effort :-)**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Cheers,**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> JR**** >>> >>> On 10 May 2013 12:05, Webster <[email protected]> wrote:**** >>> >>> Yes, that was a discussion a good while back by Bob Free. March 9, 2012 >>> to be exact.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> We had a PSS PFE onsite recently for an AD engagement and we were >>> discussing slow boots during a break in the action and he brought up >>> something I had never heard of before.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> I was always under the assumption that we had what is known as Fast >>> Logon Optimization on our XP systems that allows GPOs to process >>> asynchronously in the background.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> He told us that it is disabled in our environment because we use the >>> profile settings to map homeDir and specify login script. **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Basically anything that is set on the Profile tab in ADUC is considered >>> legacy NT behavior and disables logon optimization. I had heard before that >>> roaming profiles or software installation policies disabled it but this was >>> news to me. I played around with my account on an old XP box and it rang >>> true, never got around to looking into it further or on WIN7.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> FWIW, YMMV J**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Ken Schaefer replied:**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> >>> http://www.google.com/search?q=GPO+background+processing+AD+Profile+Logon+Script >>> **** >>> >>> first link describes the Win XP behaviour that Bob mentions.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Thread is (homedrive)**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Thanks**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Webster**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *James Rankin >>> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 4:28 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* [NTSysADM] Home drives**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Just following on from some of the comments yesterday, in this age of >>> UNC-redirected libraries, variables and system folders, is there really any >>> need for a home drive to be mapped at all? Surely we should just now be >>> able to get away with a "home area" that our folders are redirected to? >>> Interestingly enough, Folder Redirection GPOs can't be pointed at a drive >>> letter since XP/2003, it has to be a UNC path.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> I just did a bit of an audit on my own behaviour and found that I simply >>> click on My Documents, Downloads, etc. to access my files. There's very >>> little interaction with the "home drive" at all, I just click the links and >>> I'm into the network area.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> There's also the thought about people who define the home folder through >>> ADUC on the Profile tab, didn't I read somewhere (possibly on this list) >>> that defining *anything *in the Profile tab slows down Group Policy >>> processing? If anyone knows if there's a documented article on this I'd be >>> grateful for a link to it.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Anyway, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts regarding the home >>> drive situation, it would be nice to get a broader view of it.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Cheers,**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *James Rankin* >>> Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) >>> http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk**** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *James Rankin* >>> Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) >>> http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk**** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *James Rankin* >>> Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) >>> http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk**** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *James Rankin* >>> Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) >>> http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >> >> >
