8 Responses to Citrix User Profile Manager: User Store Design Recommendations

  1. Helmut January 23, 2009 at 09:43 #

    what is exactly the benfit of UPM compared to the regular Windows, Active Directory “Terminal Service User profile”?

    • Helge Klein January 23, 2009 at 09:55 #

      Citrix’ UPM page gives an overview of the benefits of using UPM. I am sure they will add articles over time explaining in more detail the advantages of the product.
      On this blog I will focus on implementation and troubleshooting.

  2. Preston January 23, 2009 at 13:55 #

    can UPM be used to migrate profiles (v1 to v2) from a Windows 2003 TS to a Windows 2008 TS? we have a client with a large 2003 TS environment with M\N drive letters and roaming profiles going to 2008 TS which unfortunately only will support C\D drive letters.

    • Helge Klein January 23, 2009 at 21:05 #

      UPM cannot migrate V1 profiles (pre Vista) to V2 profiles (Vista and beyond).

      At sepago we have recently developed a free tool called ProfileNurse. Although ProfileNurse does not handle automatic V1->V2 migrations it might help with the tasks involved.

  3. Tony Inc January 23, 2009 at 21:59 #

    I am now testing the UPM/Portable Profiles V2 and it doesnt’t seem to support archiving any more. Am I just missing where to enable turing compression on?

    • Helge Klein January 23, 2009 at 23:33 #

      That is correct. Support for archiving/zipping had unfortunately to be removed. Please note that I can only state what is. The product belongs to Citrix now, we “just” develop ;-)

  4. nick September 8, 2009 at 03:19 #

    I find it interesting that your example has Vista and W2K8 (which both use v2 profiles). Is there a specific technical reason why you are segregating the data from those platforms even though they are both v2 and could theoretically be shared? Taking that one step further, if we have a mixed environment with XP, Vista, Win7, W2K3 and W2K8…is it a best practice to configure 5 separate “profiles” for those unique platforms? Or can we just create 2 profiles and have our sub-folders be “version1” and “version2”, for example? Because I want to say that MS recommends 1 profile for each profile version and not 1 profile for each unique platform…but correct me if I’m wrong there.

    Great articles – keep them coming.

    • Helge Klein September 8, 2009 at 21:30 #

      Hi Nick,

      I would not say one way of designing a profile storage structure is “right” and another one is “wrong”. Each way of doing things certainly has its advantages and may work out well in the right environment.

      But back to the specifics at hand: obviously you need at least two profiles: one V1 (XP/2003) and one V2 (Vista and newer). As you write, it can work to have the same profile for XP/2003 on the one hand and all newer OSs on the other hand. But in my experience most larger corporations have different groups administering clients and terminal servers. The result of this is that clients have different configurations, programs in different paths, different disk layout (number of partitions), etc. All that makes profile sharing between clients and terminal servers difficult.

      Consider a simple example: a link file on the desktop that points to MS Word. Now what if Word is installed to C:\Program Files\ on the client and D:\Program Files\ on the terminal server? The link only works on one platform.

      Putting things together, in most larger real-world networks we need at least four profiles: V1 and V2 for clients and terminal servers each.

      But there may of course be companies where many or all systems are configured in the same way. In such cases, only the separation of V1 and V2 is mandatory.

Leave a Reply