MDT Media - StateStore on USB Deployment media drive? RRS feed

  • Question

  • MDT 2012 update 1

    I'm doing a Refresh (migrating XP to 7) using USB Media of my working task sequence.

    Everything works, migrates to 7 with all user data etc..

    However I noticed it takes a very long time. There's a "StateStore" folder being created on the USB drive containing the following:
    USB:\StateStore\USMT\File\E$\Deploy\Out-of-Box Drivers\

    It contains some (but not all) of the folders from the USB:\Deploy\ folder. 

    I still have a StateStore on C:\ containing the user data like it should...
    but why would it ALSO be backing up some of the deployment folders on the USB Media drive?
    After deployment completes, the USB's StateStore folder is never removed either.

    I'd really like to reduce the time it takes by avoiding this useless backup, and potential problems that may surround it.

    I have the following in my CustomSettings.ini, but nothing that should be causing backup of anything on other drives.


    Friday, December 13, 2013 4:27 PM


All replies

  • Most likely your customized .xml file is grabbing those unwanted files/folders.  Take a look in your xml named "MigFMCNA.xml", and see what file types and paths are being included in the backup.  You can add an exclusion rule to it, if there are specific files/folders that you don't want to be backed up.  Look at the 2nd example at this link which explains various methods for exclusions in USMT backups.

    Monday, December 16, 2013 8:10 PM
  • Thanks for the reply!

    I put in the following entry in my custom MigFMCNA.xml, but still have no change.

    <component type="Documents" context="System">
    <displayName _locID="miguser.avoidusb">Avoid USB Statestore</displayName>
    <role role="Data">
    <pattern type="File">D:\* [*]</pattern>
    <pattern type="File">E:\* [*]</pattern>
    <pattern type="File">F:\* [*]</pattern>
    <pattern type="File">G:\* [*]</pattern>
    Monday, December 16, 2013 9:20 PM
  • I found a blog specifically for this issue.  The blog provides scripts with implementation instructions on how to accomplish what you are trying to do.  Check it out:

    • Marked as answer by Imfusio Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:16 PM
    Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:54 PM
  • Yes! This did it.

    I may have gotten away with using <unconditionalexclude> instead of just <exclude>, but using the script allows for more versatility.

    Thanks gbillig!

    Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:16 PM