@Dashrender said:

And what process are you using to generate the path in the first place?

I've always used the Home Folder option in the user properties > Profile tab to create this folder. I'm not sure what what happen if you leave that out, or don't change it to match the new user's name (you mentioned that you changed their name (assuming the account name as well) recently.

Leaving that out, you have to put in the setting below... "Create a folder for each user under the root path". Nothing was changed to make anything stop working which is the weird part. There is another option instead, to "Redirect", but if you don't set it to Create, it won't auto-create from my experience.

@scottalanmiller said:

Does this new user have an under water locker?

I'm slowly going insane, so I try to make up funny passwords and usernames where it's possible.

Someone who doesn't like jokes got "Turd Ferguson" as their name on their VoIP phone screen. Everyone else thought it was funny.

@scottalanmiller I was thinking more along the lines of the Flying Dutchman, but that works too I guess.

I found an article saying take out %USERNAME%. That gets generated when I typed in "Users" which is a shared folder. We don't use roaming profiles/home folders. Offline files are enabled. I can't think of anything else useful off the top of my head.

In that pic, the Scope is for Users (Forest > Domain > City > Users). That user is in that OU. The security filtering is Authenticated Users.

gpresult /z shows the policy being applied, but Folder Redirection shows as N/A. No definitions for the folder redirection in there.

I looked in SYSVOL. Found it odd that User Policies aren't defined graphically but things like printer connections showed up as a readable HTML file.

@Dashrender said:

Can you show us a screen shot of the config you have of the GPO?

As requested...

So I'm seeing that Rocket.Chat is web based, but I can't seem to find info for an on-premise installation. Such as how OpenFire/Spark are open source and setup on premise (used it before, not bad considering it was free). Something hosted in the cloud would be impossible to get approved due to client contracts restricting hosted communication.

@Dashrender said:

Are you only using the chat feature of Communicator?

Do you have another thread talking about your GPO problem?

*edit

OK you do
http://mangolassi.it/topic/8561/folder-redirection-gpo-not-being-applied/10

Nice grab. Yeah I was starting to look at alternatives to Communicator but for reasons I can't discuss on a public forum, I just found out we have to go to Skype (on-premise). Lync was too expensive (~$24k), but Skype for Business is about ~$14k and they're considering that more affordable.

@scottalanmiller said:

No idea. But have you considered just leaving Communicator instead of updating it? Rocket Chat is nice.

No joke, I have dreams of dumping Communicator. That is 100% not an option right now, management is the barrier. We're definitely moving to Skype for Business but they were shell shocked by the $24k Lync project, Skype is down to about $11k.

I skimmed a Rocket Chat thread of yours. You set that up on CentOS right? Any mobile support? Having support on iOS & Android is crucial for some reason. Not sure why it's becoming a requirement, considering we don't use it with OCS. I've got the whole Skype topology setup, they just won't throw in the money for me to license it.

We have 2 domain controllers (Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise). We're moving to Skype for Business (at some point, still trying to get management to fund the project). We HAVE to move away from Communicator, I know that. I'm pushing SO hard to get us off of it. But we have pending issues immediately that I need to address. These consist of folder redirection not working, etc. Looking at the domain functionality, it is at 2003. The Office Communications Server 2007 R2 installation is on a 2003 server. I've been told by an admin they "think" OCS would break if I raised domain functionality to see if that fixes our GPO and file share issues but I want to be certain.

Anyone have experience with this circumstance?

@Dashrender more specifically, the resultant for Folder Redirection shows as N/A.

@Dashrender said:

what does GP Results give you? Any errors? do you see that the expected GPOs are in fact applying? I think you mentioned this already, but it's worth double checking.

running a gpresult /z shows that it is applying the various policies. If I scroll down further, Folder Redirection shows as N/A. But everything else in that policy (home page, etc) shows its definitions.

@MattSpeller said:

Computer in the wrong group in AD?

Computer/User are in the correct OUs.

@Dashrender said:

Have you tried deleting the profile from the user's computer?

What happens when you log in as that user from another computer?

Same thing. I went as far as to create a brand new user "Davey Jones". New users, we've never had a problem with. But now, this brand new user is experiencing the same issue so it seems to be systemtic. But I just created a new user a few days ago and things were fine. Replication tests across the file shares work fine (create a document, and go to the other server and immediately see it there). The target server is geographically the closest. I've been looking for some corruption in SYSVOL but I don't see version differences or anything of the sort.

Anyone...?

This one has me stumped. A user had a profile issue that started from day 1, there were a bunch of changes made to her profile like dept change, name change, etc all within like 45 minutes. Shouldn't matter but then she would have sync issues and so forth. So I decided to copy her emails to username1 from username, copy her documents over, etc. I purged username from both file servers which are replicated and healthy. I've done replication tests and things work fine. Her target server is set to the correct (geographically closest) server. She has permissions and other GPOs are applying fine. I've checked the Scope Links & security filtering. Everything is correct there. Doing a gpresult /z I see other settings from the User Policy being applied, but not folder redirection.

In another note, any brand new users being created, redirect their folders/auto-create a folder on the file share just fine. It's just this one account that I can't get to create a new folder. I do not want to manually do any of this, I want the system to do it so I know everything is working the way it should.

I've already re-created the user profile after purging anything and everything relating to that username.

@scottalanmiller So then why would someone want a free copy of RHEL vs. CentOS? Anything baked into RHEL that CentOS doesn't provide?

I understand there are very minor differences, but is there a justified reason? Documentation? Why does CentOS exist if RHEL can be given away for free, without paid support? Guessing you can't get updates if RHEL isn't licensed, whereas CentOS can, because they are protected by the GPL and serviced by the community...?

@scottalanmiller said:
But even RHEL if you have a copy you can just give it away.

So it doesn't check in with the Red Hat activation, to ensure people are paying for it (thinking of Microsoft & Windows)...

By the way, not trying to hijack this thread. Kind of spun off from Xen...

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

If you want RHEL, aren't you required to purchase a license (~$799) and bind it with a subscription in the customer online portal? That's how I've always done it...

Nope, they have no means of making you pay for RHEL, they don't own the software that they are selling, how could they demand that you pay for it?

Where would someone download a free copy? I've always been told by any admin, "Red Hat requires you pay for it. If you want free, download CentOS."

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

What I'm understanding, is that Citrix designed XenServer, and it is a paid for solution (like RHEL requires payment, and service is an optional/additional payment).

Even RHEL is free. Red Hat doesn't provide a free download of it, but they have no means of not having it be free. Nothing built on Linux is non-free, it has no way to not be free. RH just doesn't have to pay to give it to you. Same thing with Xen. Xen and all products built on it are free, period. XenServer has always been free, Citrix just didn't used to advertise how to get it for free. Now they do.

If you want RHEL, aren't you required to purchase a license (~$799) and bind it with a subscription in the customer online portal? That's how I've always done it...

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

Xen... XenServer... Xen server... Something I haven't looked into is the pricing. Xen is open source & free at the same time, that I have gathered. XenServer is something that Citrix has created, and charges for (open source, but not free... Red Hat in the same fashion. Open source, but not free). Xen server, any Xen server (can be open source and free, or can be XenServer... It's just a vague term). Anyone have any input? I'm always looking at new options for cost effective deployment in the right environment.

It's all open and all free. XenServer has no way to not be free because the license protects you. Citrix didn't create XenServer, it's built from Linux' Xen project and CentOS. Citrix just bundled it and sold support. And even that is in the past. Xen, XenServer are both part of the Linux Foundation, are both GPL and that means free.

Ok, I'm seeing it more clearly now. What Citrix was selling, was basically just support (bundled with the software of course, but they aren't technically selling the software, because they can't).

Almost right. They WERE selling the software, but it is also free. The GPL license that they are under allows EVERYONE to resell anything. So Xen, KVM, XenServer, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc. They are all under the GPL. You are allowed to give them away for free, the source is open. You are ALSO allowed to charge for them. You meaning EVERYONE. I can legally sell you Ubuntu, CentOS, XenServer, etc. So can Citrix. We are just... selling you something free. Does that make sense? I can charge you $1,000 for it, but you can turn around and give it away free or sell it yourself.

Okay, so Citrix didn't create XenServer (like taking Xen and making a distro specific to what they wanted to do with it). XenServer is essentially just a distro of Xen, that the Xen team created. Is that right? I'm trying to step back and see this clearly. If Xen is to Linux, I'm guessing XenServer is to Red Hat, or Ubuntu? It's just a distro of Xen? I've been looking at Xen wiki and The Xen Project. But I haven't found anything that says "here is the history of all things Xen so as not to confuse any parts of Xen itself."

Correct. Xen is the hypervisor and goes way back, it is nearly as old as VMware. Both of them predate hardware assistance on the CPU! Xen is the only one that has retained this heritage in its current design, it is the only hypervisor left that has a means of running without hardware assistance.

Xen is to Linux as XenServer is to RHEL. The CentOS version of XenServer is XCP. Identical, but without the Citrix branding. XenServer and XCP are a distro of Xen. Xen does nothing on its own, just like Linux.

Competing with XenServer / XCP are the native RHEL / CentOS, Ubuntu and Suse Xen stacks. You can do Xen from any of them (we were Suse/Xen for a long time) and this used to be popular because they were so much more up to date than XenServer. XS has fixed that for the most part and now that XenServer / XCP is a reference implementation of a Xen distro directly from the Xen team at the Linux Foundation there isn't much call for other versions.

Oracle VM is a head to head distro competitor with XenServer.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense. So if you want XenServer, you have to go to Citrix and pay for it, right? I did a proof of concept with XenServer in the past, and went to Citrix for the software & licensing. What I'm understanding, is that Citrix designed XenServer, and it is a paid for solution (like RHEL requires payment, and service is an optional/additional payment).

Thanks for taking the time to explain this by the way.