We do use the quota on the Windows Server 2008 R2; but the problem in this thread is the fact that the login is slow when we redirect the user home folder to a network drive. We redirect to encourage our users to save to the server rather than the desktop so we don't have to backup each individual desktop computer. That said, we do want to encourage users to be mindful of the space they take up, so we use the quota system on the server to limit them from going nuts.
If we stop the redirect to gain a fast login, users save to their local desktop and nothing is backed up unless we sync their local home folder with the server in some fashion. What are others doing to gain a quick login and save documents to the server? On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM, William Robbins <[email protected]>wrote: > 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**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>> >>> >> >
