Ah, it was still too early in the day for me to think properly. :) Well we still assign our users with older machines via ADUC, and instruct them to save important data there.
- WJR On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Stephen Wimberly <[email protected]>wrote: > 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**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
