![](data:image/svg+xml, %3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' height='64' class='font-weight-bold' style='font: 600 30.11764705882353px "SegoeUI", Arial' width='64'%3E%3Ccircle fill='hsl(304, 60%, 39%)' cx='32' cy='32' r='32' /%3E%3Ctext x='50%25' y='55%25' dominant-baseline='middle' text-anchor='middle' fill='%23FFF' %3EA%3C/text%3E%3C/svg%3E)
![](data:image/svg+xml, %3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' height='64' class='font-weight-bold' style='font: 600 30.11764705882353px "SegoeUI", Arial' width='64'%3E%3Ccircle fill='hsl(0, 61%, 10%)' cx='32' cy='32' r='32' /%3E%3Ctext x='50%25' y='55%25' dominant-baseline='middle' text-anchor='middle' fill='%23FFF' %3EH2%3C/text%3E%3C/svg%3E)
As of today, ReFS has seen improvements, but it's still not universally recommended for FSLogix profile storage. Microsoft’s own guidance continues to favor NTFS for profile containers due to its broader compatibility and stability. NTFS also supports features like deduplication and robust backup tooling, which are essential in enterprise environments.
Here are a few best practices we recommend:
Use NTFS for FSLogix profile containers, especially in production environments.
Deploy on high-performance storage (SSD/NVMe) with sufficient IOPS to handle login storms.
Enable VHDX over VHD for better resiliency and performance.
Avoid using DFS namespaces for profile paths unless thoroughly tested—latency can cause profile load failures.
Monitor storage latency and throughput regularly to catch bottlenecks early.
If you're still curious about ReFS improvements, I’d suggest testing it in a controlled lab environment before rolling it out broadly. And if you’re using Windows Server 2022 or newer, keep an eye on release notes for ReFS-related fixes.