Looks like you don't have the proper redirections in place. I have a Teams 2.1 listed here. https://www.jeffriechers.com/wiki/keeping-fslogix-profiles-small/ I am working on a full Teams 2.1 update, deploy and real world success stories now.

@Jeff Riechers please "reply to thread" 🙂 According to Jason you should not have to do any redirections. We don't and it works fine on 2022. @François-Xavier Rigaud This known to happen with antivirus programs. Which one are you using out of curiosity.

Sentinel One

Yup, that is the issue.

@stormlight Thanks

Sorry, was in Activity view instead of home view and it didn't thread right. The point of the redirections.xml is that if you are using any of the open community ones they restrict folders that are needed now with the new Teams 2.1. Have fixed a couple of clients with 2022 issues just with that.

Yeah, that's why its best not to use open community ones 😜. I cant count how many times I have helped customers fix an issue because they google search for a "recommended" exclusion list like you did when Citirx UPM was the only game in town. From top to bottom all the FSlogix teams keeps saying no exclusions. I say exclusions only as needed and one at a time with full testing. Def no internet recomended.

I wish I had your storage budget. Most my clients want them stripped down to be lean, mean, saving them green.

Depends, You cant evaluate the trade offs if your downloading redirections and the only goal is storage savings with blinders on. For example, this article list the trade offs for some of the teams exclusions. If i did not evaluate each one with a find tooth comb and just went with storage savings, sure I would have saved hard drive cost, However, i would have paid more then i saved with the extra compute and data needed. (and user experience) https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/new-teams-vdi-requirements-deploy

@stormlight is spot on here and the article from the Teams is a direct result of our teams working together to provide the right guidance! @Jeff Riechers while you will have customers that only care about cost savings, as a solution provider it is also important to ensure you've done the cost / benefit analysis. Most application vendors don't design their applications with profile roaming in mind and when data is excluded it can have unexpected results. This is why we don't provide an explicit list of excludes and rely on our fellow PG teams to make their own statements on what is able to be excluded based on how they've designed their application.

Said it before and I will say it again - customers wanting their containers to be "lean" are using the wrong solution.

Well I took 10 gb fslogix profiles down to 1 gb. Biggest offender were browser caches. Also made sure to get storage sense, and dehydration scripts in place for onedrive. Small profiles, but still cloud backed.

I don't doubt this, but I won't assume you want that data excluded as it could be very different in each environment. This is why you have the power and flexibility to exclude the data you've tested works within your environments.

100%. Start with a base template, and go from there. Same with my WEM, GPO, and mandatory profiles. I have my starter template, and go from there. Saves me a lot of legwork, but never dropped in completely on it's own as a solution.

Browser caches will just recache though. You just swap storage for performance hits. YMMV