May 25 2020 05:15 AM
May 25 2020 05:15 AM
As per title.
I have configured WVD for approx 100 concurrent users with all profiles managed via fslogix sitting on Azure Files (standard).
We have had issues with our deployment (with not getting the expected user/vm density we expect) however an issue we did _not_ expect was the storage transaction costs we are seeing.
We currently are experiencing a transaction cost (hot lrs write) to storage cost ratio of about 25:1.
I have utilised redirections.xml to redirect as much (google chrome, teams. onedrive amongst others) as I can away from the profile but no real difference has been made to the azure storage stats. I have run process monitor with filters configured to record file writes but cannot see any smoking guns other than the afore mentioned applications.
Are other seeing the same? Or is there something fundamentally incorrect with this deployment.
May 25 2020 10:14 AM
@AU-Sensible we are seeing the same. Have a support case open to investigate, will feed back any response, your mileage may vary of course. Would be interesting to compare/ contrast with profile containers on VM as store; will try and get that set up and monitor.
May 25 2020 04:07 PM
@SteveMiles70 I am both glad and disappointed to hear that this experience is shared. I too have a case (multiple re: WVD performance) open with MS about this. I will let you know if anything of consequence comes of it.
In the discussions I have had with support personnel I have been made two recommendations:
- enable folder exclusions via redirections.xml for google chrome cache (completed, reduced write transactions by about 10% only)
- remove DFS for VHDLocations that I have setup (I created a namespace for \\domain.local\dfs\profiles > \\storageacc.file.core.windows.net\filesharename) and used the optimised namespace in my golden image for the registry entry VHDLocations (completed, no change - also might add that it doesnt make alot of sense to me either but I will defer to the SMEs)
In your deployment would you mind sharing what you are currently redirecting via redirections.xml and any other specific fslogix configurations you might have made?
May 26 2020 11:59 AM
In many cases, you will not be establishing a net new file share for your organization, but instead migrating an existing file share from an on-premises file server or NAS device to Azure Files. There are many tools, provided both by Microsoft and 3rd parties, to do a migration to a file share, but they can roughly be divided into two categories:
Tools which maintain file system attributes such as ACLs and timestamps:
Azure File Sync: Azure File Sync can be used as a method to ingest data into an Azure file share, even when the desired end deployment isn't to maintain an on-premises presence. Azure File Sync can be installed in place on existing Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows Server 2016, and Windows Server 2019 deployments. An advantage of using Azure File Sync as an ingest mechanism is that end users can continue to use the existing file share in place; cut-over to the Azure file share can occur after all of the data is finished uploading in the background.
Robocopy: Robocopy is a well-known copy tool that ships with Windows and Windows Server. Robocopy may be used to transfer data into Azure Files by mounting the file share locally and then using the mounting location as the destination in the Robocopy command.
May 26 2020 04:14 PM
Hi - thanks for the reply, but I am having difficulty understanding its relevance to my situation. Are you advocating that azure files is not the correct location for fslogix profiles given that 'in many cases you will not be establishing a new file share'?
Please elaborate - but thank you for taking the time to respond.
Jun 12 2020 12:47 AM
Dec 21 2020 04:40 AM
Mar 04 2021 02:34 PM
Mar 05 2021 10:58 AM
@Philip_doITflex adding to this, what is the advantage of using azure files over hosting the FSlogix profiles on a file server and not have to worry about transaction costs? I also worry about performance.
Mar 07 2021 10:00 AM - edited Mar 07 2021 10:02 AM
0,09$ CAD for 10 000 transactions sems low cost in paper but in reality it is super expensive.
I don't use Azure files for profiles, but I think Philip got the point. You would probably better off paying for premium if you got a lot of users.
If you want to compare with a completly different use case as a pricing perspective. A backup to a blob storage would be $0,0704CAD Write and $0,0057CAD Read. (x15 pricing cost for read operations standard blob vs azure files).
Mar 07 2021 02:26 PM
Mar 07 2021 02:37 PM
Mar 07 2021 03:16 PM