I've been "told" it's old school but........... Assign their home drive through ADUC and direct them to save to that drive, also let them know that their local PCs will not get backed up.
Regards, Don Guyer Catholic Health East - Information Technology Enterprise Directory & Messaging Services 3805 West Chester Pike, Suite 100, Newtown Square, Pa 19073 email: dgu...@che.org<mailto:dgu...@che.org> Office: 610.550.3595 | Cell: 610.955.6528 | Fax: 610.271.9440 For immediate assistance, please open a Service Desk ticket or call the helpdesk @ 610-492-3839. [cid:image001.jpg@01CE636F.5A0EEB90] From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Wimberly Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:56 AM To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [NTSysADM] Home drives 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 <dangerw...@gmail.com<mailto:dangerw...@gmail.com>> 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 <riverside...@loopyguy.com<mailto:riverside...@loopyguy.com>> 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 <dangerw...@gmail.com<mailto:dangerw...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks again good sir! :) - WJR On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Webster <webs...@carlwebster.com<mailto:webs...@carlwebster.com>> 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: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>] On Behalf Of William Robbins Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:36 AM To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com> 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 <kz2...@googlemail.com<mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com>> 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 <webs...@carlwebster.com<mailto:webs...@carlwebster.com>> wrote: That is my understanding. Thanks Webster From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>] On Behalf Of James Rankin Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:28 AM To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com> 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 <webs...@carlwebster.com<mailto:webs...@carlwebster.com>> 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: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>] On Behalf Of James Rankin Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:15 AM To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com> 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 <webs...@carlwebster.com<mailto:webs...@carlwebster.com>> 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 :) 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: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>] On Behalf Of James Rankin Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:28 AM To: NTSysADM@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:NTSysADM@lists.myitforum.com> 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<http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk/> -- James Rankin Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk<http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk/> -- James Rankin Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk<http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk/> -- James Rankin Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk<http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk/> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including any attachments is the property of Catholic Health East and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message, and reply to the sender regarding the error in a separate email.
<<inline: image001.jpg>>
