Request for Granular File-Level Exclusions in FSLogix Redirection Configurations

3D IM 0 Reputation points

Hi! We're using the redirections file to keep our containers slim, but it only lets us skip entire directories, which is a bit of a blunt instrument for our needs. We have specific high-churn log files and lock files that keep bloating our storage, and we desperately need a way to filter out individual files instead of just dumping the whole folder. Is there any timeline for when we might get granular file-level exclusions in FSLogix?

0 comments No comments
Sign in to comment

3 answers

  1. Jason Nguyen Tran 20,030 Reputation points • Independent Advisor

    Hi 3D IM,

    I’m following up to check whether the issue has been resolved. Feel free to reply if you need further information. If the information provided was helpful, please click "Accept Answer" to help others in the community. Thank you!

    0 comments No comments
    Sign in to comment
  2. Jason Nguyen Tran 20,030 Reputation points • Independent Advisor

    Hi there,

    Today, there isn’t a committed timeline for introducing file-level exclusions within FSLogix, and I want to be transparent that this capability is something we’ve seen requested but hasn’t yet been scheduled for delivery.

    In the meantime, most customers handle this by restructuring application output paths where possible, or by isolating volatile files into dedicated subdirectories so they can be cleanly excluded via the existing redirections model. Another workaround is leveraging application-level configuration (if available) to redirect logs and temp files outside of the profile container entirely.

    I completely understand the operational impact this limitation can have, especially in environments with heavy I/O churn, so I’ve made sure to pass your scenario along internally as additional feedback to the product group. These real-world use cases are exactly what help shape future improvements.

    If you have flexibility on the application side, I’d be happy to help review your current structure and suggest a more optimized exclusion strategy.

    If this answers your question, please feel free to click “Accept Answer”, it helps others in the community as well.

    Jason

    0 comments No comments
    Sign in to comment

  3. AI answer

    FSLogix redirections.xml supports only folder-level include/exclude behavior within the user profile container. The documented model is:

    • ExcludeCommonFolders for well-known folders (Contacts, Desktop, Documents, etc.).
    • <Exclude> and <Include> elements that operate on paths under %userprofile%, where the path must be an existing folder path and must not include C:\Users\%username%.
    • No documented support for targeting individual files or file patterns inside those folders.

    The guidance also emphasizes using minimal and carefully chosen redirections, and there is no mention of file-level granularity or a roadmap/timeline for such a feature. The available options are therefore limited to:

    • Excluding whole folders (or well-known folders via ExcludeCommonFolders).
    • Using scripts or other processes after sign-in/sign-out to clean up specific files inside the container when exclusions alone are not sufficient. This is explicitly recommended when exclusions do not remove existing data from the profile container.

    Because there is no documented capability or configuration for file-level exclusions in redirections.xml, there is no published timeline or indication that such a feature is planned.

    For high‑churn log/lock data today, the supported approaches are:

    1. Restructure application logging so that noisy files live in folders that can be safely excluded at the folder level.
    2. Use post‑sign‑in or sign‑out scripts to delete or trim specific files inside the container, as recommended for cleaning up excluded content that remains in existing profiles.
    3. Keep redirections.xml entries minimal to avoid performance impact and unexpected application behavior.

    References:

    AI-generated content may be incorrect. Read our transparency notes for more information.
Sign in to answer

Your answer