Introduction
One of the most revealing moments for me as director of development UPM was a meeting I attended the group of UK users Citrix few years ago. I was not there to promote UPM; I went with my team to listen and learn what Citrix users were with profiles.
But in the pub after the meeting, and with a pint of Fuller in my hand, I ask the question "why people do not choose UPM
Some will use UPM - they said it was just installed and working and never have to worry again (slight exaggeration, I confess) - but who does? t me most of the time said it was too difficult to configure
drill down, it turned out that there was indeed a lot of configuration policies that are not well explained -. why you set some policy one way or differently? And it was just too off-putting to some people invest time in UPM -. They had to stick with local or roaming profiles, or pay for one of several high-profile management solutions range from excellent to sort all this
So that led to a small revolution in our documents that we internally called the "Sixfold Way" was born - six questions you need to ask questions about your UPM deployment, which will guide your choice for the vast majority of policies. This article appeared in the eDocs v4.0 UPM and was adapted on eDocs UPM also. See http://support.citrix.com/proddocs/topic/user-profile-manager-sou/upm-plan-decide-wrapper.html
Development
This is the most of these issues relate to the environment (XenApp or XenDesktop? provisioned or permanent?), and these issues can be verified by program. . Another (mobile / laptop by static report) you can make a good shot at by looking for characteristics that most laptops have, like a battery, or the type of system case
This means that - in theory - you can unload much of this work in the software. Ideally, you simply point UPM to a file share or a DFS namespace, and it would work on the rest.
We are not yet there, and may never happen, because the question of what apps you have, and application settings are important to keep demands a) product knowledge wide and deep, and b) an understanding of what the company considers important parameters, mutable settings, etc.
what we can do, though, is to consider the environment, mostly by using WMI queries, and compare the parameters detected in those - in our opinion - are recommended for this environment. We wrapped in a PowerShell script that you can run on your driver (or production) environment, which indicates disparities.
From this you, as administrator, can return to our eDocs section "so Sixfold" and read about why we recommend a specific setting in a particular environment, and whether it makes sense for you.
again, we were able to look at messages on the forum UPM, and pick up on other issues that may arise, as if there were trailing spaces in the names of files that could cause unexpected effects, or cookies management has been set up properly, or 8.3 file name support has been enabled on Windows 03 and XP or ... whatever.
is where we are today with this UPM configuration verification tool.
Because it is not part of the product and provided as is, we can change rapidly if (by example) a new version of the hypervisor is released not recognized our existing controls. Or if a new environment or the configuration pitfall emerges through the forum, we can put a check to it.
Because it is not part of the UPM, he may have a user interface, and you can capture the output, and submit and all problem reports. In some situations, it may be easier than to run a report RSoP, or capture UPMSettings.ini file.
And we can build in the minds of new Citrix products as they are released (as PVD), which would invalidate the previous recommendations.
The Future
As I said earlier, we could in theory cook all this environmental awareness in UPM itself, and we could remove large sections of the configuration . What might be fine for 80% of you, but there would traps:
- What if a new OS patch modifies the results of WMI queries? UPM might decide that it was not running on a hypervisor and more change operation. (We have seen recent version specific differences in Hyper-V, for example.)
- What if a new Citrix component appears that changes our recommendation? PVD is a good example, where we suggest that streaming profile is actually better off.
- There may be perfectly good reasons why our recommended configuration is not really going to be optimal. For example, you may know that a XenApp server for serving a small department, it is best to keep the UPM profiles cached locally.
So we will be very cautious before any of this awareness of the environment in the core of UPM. Where we do, we will ensure that you can replace UPM decisions, leaving UPM decide what to do if you have configured a policy "default".
The script itself is "read only" - it does not change, only reports on the differences. Future improvements could include checking permissions and NTFS ACLs on the user store, and even writing test files in the store, and update ACLs. Again, because it would be our script, written in your system, it is not a change we would do lightly.
Conclusion
We hope this tool will help new users UPM overcome their fear of configuration, and help all users understand why might need to be put in a some particular environment policy.
Therefore, we encourage you to try the tool. You'll find it http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX132805. Let us know if it is useful, and let us know what improvements you would like to see.
0 Komentar