This message was deleted.
# citrix-vad
s
This message was deleted.
🙌 1
j
I don't think there is anything wrong with that model at all to be fair - why this vs a Catalog -> DG -> Desktop logic (purely curiosity here)... @Shane Kleinert @Oz Zy interesting one given a current project....
no chance of nested group naughtiness?
s
Tags are ignored in local host cache scenario, think that might be possible?
p
@James Kindon i was trying to avoid multiple DGs and saw tags as a way around that. Checked for group nesting and found nothing yet.. @Steve Noel hmm....we do have service continuity enabled...
đź’Ż 1
s
you doing any storefront aggregation with multiple citrix sites/cloud?
o
yea, should work as advertised, but I know tags are "subject' to a lot of other stuff (zone preferences as a big one and 'readiness' being another). So with the tag restrictions you have and the added user volume, I am wondering if it is seeing not enough with tag "x" and then falling back to any other desktop then when it overflows?
p
No aggregation.
s
without aggregation, two dekstops of the same name would show up as something like this...
really sounds like a bug of some sort. WIthout access to the desktop, they def should not be able to launch, and if they did have access to both, they would show up as 2 diff icons
although i'm testing wtih storefront on prem, cloud workspace may behave differently with a native aggregation type setting
p
@Steve Noel they don't because the desktops are locked to AD groups.
Users are in one group or the other. Not both.
Our team see both. But that is because we are mapped to both.
s
that cloud workspace, correct? not storefront
p
Yup. All cloud managed.
I think i'm just going to create a second DG...
s
or call the desktop something different
could help narrow it down
p
We don't want to do that because we are siloing users to one datacenter or the other based on need and its just less complicated all around to have the same desktop name and separate users by AD groups.
Descriptions have clues to where they ultimately land, but user has to dig for that.
From the above comments it does not sound like we are doing something really dumb. Second DG would bypass rando weirdness with the black box that is cloud.
s
yeah, i would agree, if not, it would be something workspace is doing with duplicate 'publishedname' entries
j
Definitely more a tag issue than anything else, your design / use logic is exactly what we would do, smells like at some point it’s flaking on the “tag” restriction, tis a strange one - I’ve used tag restrictions forever and not seen them fail, odd