3 Responses to Citrix Profile Management Architecture – Why it is Not Based on a Mandatory Profile Any More

  1. Ron Kuper February 19, 2013 at 20:01 #

    Hi Helge,

    Thank you very much for dedicating a response (just seeing this now)!

    Merging and scanning for deltas sounds more intensive than simply copying & streaming indeed.
    I’ll state a known fact – the current architecture is better for most scenarios.

    Still I’ll argue that there are a few scenarios (mainly Task Workes) where the mandatory architecture has more benefits.
    I’ll try to explain; maybe you could change my mind once and for all :)

    For several organizations with thousands of Task Workers all using the same set of applications – The move from legacy PS4.0 architecture using the “unofficial” UPM1 with mandatory profile to state of the art XenApp 6.5 with UPM4.x was painful.
    Regardless of the amount of educated use of GPP, UPM exclusions, Folder Redirections etc. the following “Forgotten” issues suddenly appeared:

    * The new profiles share was much larger than the old one, by several factors for some
    * “Profiles inconsistencies” started to show again (Usually ending in the deletion of a profile by a the support team in order to “fix” the application..)
    * HKCU keeps getting larger each user
    * “Junk” files just keep finding their way to the user’s profile
    * Probably one or two more issues I do not think about at the moment.

    Of course we all know all of these issues but back then using UPM1 with mandatory and picking just the few files and registry settings needed for each user eliminated them entirely.

    For these customers of ours (Banks, Telecom – lots of call center employees) upgrading to XenApp 6.5 with UPM4 was actually a step back. “Profile Problems” has returned.

    What are we missing?
    Can you really say Mandatory + Deltas has no other benefits than central management (which I agree is unappealing) ?

    • Helge Klein February 19, 2013 at 21:22 #

      There is certainly a value to profile management solutions based on mandatory profiles. I would say those are typically “simpler” scenarios with a small set of applications where the administrator wants to control a large part of the environment. You described it well.

      My guess is, though, that for most scenarios the “sync all” approach is better, partly because it is much easier to set up (no inclusion lists), especially with a large application set.

  2. Ron Kuper February 19, 2013 at 20:21 #

    Just remembered something important – In the above mentioned situations we used UPM1 in “Include” mode (If I recall the term).
    I.e. – no need for massive delta scans for changes and merges. Only specified regkeys and files were saved.

Leave a Reply