1. Hi,
    Does the “VHD compaction” feature work with the “exclusive access to VHD Profile container” feature on UPM version 2308?

    1. Yes, all the “exclusive access” policy does is make sure that a single disk is used rather than an additional RW disk which is the default setting. Compaction should work fine with either setup.

      1. We updated upm to version 2308 only in the VDI image and assigned new policy settings through Windows GPO, CVAD is still 2206. Exclusive access to VHD containers works successfully, but VHD disk compaction and VHD auto-expansion do not work.

  2. Hi James

    Another great article. I’m just getting to grips with UPM and looking at (potentially) replacing FSLogix with it. I seem to be failing at this first hurdle though and disk compaction just isn’t working, even though we’ve got all the relevant GPO’s set up. I’ve got a 6GB VHDX and of that, 4GB is white space. The free space ration is set to 10% and the number of logoffs is set to 1. The Optimize Drive service is set to manual, but even when I set it to Automatic and it’s running, still no compaction. Any ideas what I’m missing? Thanks

    1. Hi Phil

      Sounds like you’ve done everything right – are the UPM Registry entries to enable compaction written OK to the test machine? Check in HKLM\Software\Policies\Citrix\UserProfileManager(HDX)

    1. Hmmmm should all work OK then AFAIK.

      Happy to jump on a call sometime if you want to work through it, you can get hold of me at kz20fl [at] gmail [dot] com (or you could try Citrix support 😉 )

  3. Thanks James. Really appreciate that. I’ll play around with it for a bit longer and go from there. I’ll try Citrix first rather than bothering you, but may well reach out to you at some point. Thanks again. Phil

  4. Hi James. Just a bit of an update on this. It looks like other GPO setting aren’t applying, namely the exclusion list for directories. We added the relevant one’s for Teams, but still getting massive profile bloat and on closer inspection, the exclusions are being ignored or not applied. I read this https://docs.citrix.com/en-us/profile-management/current-release/troubleshoot/common-issues.html#determine-which-policies-are-in-force which states “Use the UPMSettings.ini file to determine the Profile Management policies that are being applied”, but that UPMSettings.ini file isn’t being created in the users profile folder on the profile server. Any ideas why that wouldn’t be getting created?

  5. Hi James

    I’m testing using UPM with profile container, instead of FSLogix,
    and like others in this thread, disc compaction simple isn’t working in UPM 2308.
    All the relevant UPM settings are configured and visible in the registry on the VDA.

    The UPM Profile Container feature is working like a charme, except disc compaction.
    From the eventlog on the VDA, I get these entries relevant to disc compaction, at user logoff:

    “The storage optimizer successfully completed shrink estimation on userXXX-Profile”
    “The storage optimizer successfully completed defragmentation on userXXX-Profile”
    “The storage optimizer successfully completed retrim on userXXX-Profile”

    To my knowledge the problem here is that retrim mode, only “sends down retrims without scanning for zero blocks or reclaiming unused blocks”

    Perhaps the problem is that the disc compaction feature is using the retrim mode for optimizing the VHDX file, instead of one of the other modes available for optimizing a VHDX file, like Quick, Full, Pretrimmed or Prezeroed.

  6. Through AD. Some of them are applying but not all of them. Weird one. I’ll log it with Citrix and see what they come back with.

  7. Hello,
    We are currently testing Container feature of UPM and we are at the point where we need to take a decision.
    Should we go with the container or keep the standard upm profile that worked for years.
    Any pros and cons blog post somewhere to help us?

    Thanks a lot,

    1. Containers will improve logon times, reduce performance overheads, etc. Generally I say containers for desktop sessions and file-based for published apps only (although it depends on the apps TBF).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *