FSLogix profile configurations for App virtualization only scenario

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1327783%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EFSLogix%20profile%20configurations%20for%20App%20virtualization%20only%20scenario%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1327783%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EHi%20everyone%2C%20need%20some%20advice%20here%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EWe%20understand%20that%20the%20FSLogix%20can%20be%20used%20for%20profile%20management%20and%20profiles%20can%20be%20stored%20externally%20on%20some%20storage%20e.g.%20Azure%20Files.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EIn%20theory%2C%20this%20tells%20us%20that%20we%20would%20need%20to%20worry%20about%20managing%20user%20profiles%20and%20configure%20FSLogix%20on%20base%20image%20only%20when%20end%20users%20are%20going%20to%20sign-in%20and%20consume%20complete%20desktop%20as%20a%26nbsp%3B%20service.%20(i.e.%20when%20users%20are%20assigned%20to%20Desktop%20application%20group).%20Is%20it%20correct%20understanding%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EIf%20above%20understanding%20is%20correct%20then%2C%20does%20this%20mean%20that%20if%20RDS%20hosts%20are%20only%20going%20offer%20virtual%20apps%20and%20not%20full%20desktop%20as%20a%20service%20(i.e.%20all%20users%20assigned%20to%20Remote%20application%20group%20and%20not%20to%20Desktop%20application%20group)%20then%20we%20wont%20need%20to%20configure%20FSLogix%20on%20the%20base%20image%20at%20all%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3ECan%20someone%20please%20clarify%20this%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EThanks%20in%20advance!%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1341188%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20FSLogix%20profile%20configurations%20for%20App%20virtualization%20only%20scenario%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1341188%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3Eyou%20still%20need%20FSLogix%20for%20RemoteApp.%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1341193%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20FSLogix%20profile%20configurations%20for%20App%20virtualization%20only%20scenario%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1341193%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F181812%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Soo%20Kuan%20Teo%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3Bcurious%20to%20know%20the%20specific%20reason%20around%20why%20it%20would%20still%20be%20needed%20for%20remote%20app%20only%20scenario.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1344289%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20FSLogix%20profile%20configurations%20for%20App%20virtualization%20only%20scenario%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1344289%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F624245%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40bhushangawale%3C%2FA%3E%2C%20I%20may%20be%20mistaken%20in%20this%2C%20however%20it's%20preferable%20to%20have%20the%20UPD%2FFSLogix%20containers%20stored%20in%20a%20central%20location%2C%20as%20opposed%20to%20locally%20on%20each%20host's%20C%20drive.%26nbsp%3B%20If%20you're%20deploying%20RemoteApps%20via%20WVD%20then%20I%20can%20see%20no%20reason%20not%20to%20take%20advantage%20of%20the%20benefits%20of%20the%20more%20streamlined%20FXLogix%20containers%20instead%20of%20the%20more%20usual%20UPD%20storage%20on%20a%20network%20accessible%20drive.%26nbsp%3B%20Also%20I'm%20not%20aware%20of%20how%20to%20configure%20that%20location%20under%20the%20WVD%20way%20of%20doing%20things.%26nbsp%3B%20Likely%20FSLogix%20is%20your%20only%20real%20method%20of%20configuring%20where%20they%20will%20reside.%26nbsp%3B%20It's%20also%20Microsoft%20best%20practice%20at%20this%20point%20for%20WVD%20deployments%2C%20even%20if%20the%20user%20profiles%20are%20goign%20to%20be%20small%20due%20to%20only%20being%20RemoteApp%20deployments.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1344697%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20FSLogix%20profile%20configurations%20for%20App%20virtualization%20only%20scenario%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1344697%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EThe%20apps%20you%20published%20may%20also%20have%20user%20data%20that%20needs%20to%20be%20stored%20in%20user%20profile%2C%20for%20example%20Outlook.%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
Contributor

Hi everyone, need some advice here 

 

We understand that the FSLogix can be used for profile management and profiles can be stored externally on some storage e.g. Azure Files. 

 

In theory, this tells us that we would need to worry about managing user profiles and configure FSLogix on base image only when end users are going to sign-in and consume complete desktop as a  service. (i.e. when users are assigned to Desktop application group). Is it correct understanding?

 

If above understanding is correct then, does this mean that if RDS hosts are only going offer virtual apps and not full desktop as a service (i.e. all users assigned to Remote application group and not to Desktop application group) then we wont need to configure FSLogix on the base image at all?

 

Can someone please clarify this?

Thanks in advance! 

 

4 Replies
you still need FSLogix for RemoteApp.

@Soo Kuan Teo curious to know the specific reason around why it would still be needed for remote app only scenario. 

@bhushangawale, I may be mistaken in this, however it's preferable to have the UPD/FSLogix containers stored in a central location, as opposed to locally on each host's C drive.  If you're deploying RemoteApps via WVD then I can see no reason not to take advantage of the benefits of the more streamlined FXLogix containers instead of the more usual UPD storage on a network accessible drive.  Also I'm not aware of how to configure that location under the WVD way of doing things.  Likely FSLogix is your only real method of configuring where they will reside.  It's also Microsoft best practice at this point for WVD deployments, even if the user profiles are goign to be small due to only being RemoteApp deployments. 

The apps you published may also have user data that needs to be stored in user profile, for example Outlook.