Fix FSLogix Profile Exclusion for a Single User

AZ-140 By islever Editorial Last updated Oct 4, 2026

Plan and implement FSLogix

Short answer

C Remove User1 from Group3 to eliminate their FSLogix profile exclusion without affecting other users.

Question

You have an Azure subscription that contains two users named User1 and User2 and the Microsoft Entra groups shown in the following table. You have an Azure Virtual Desktop host pool named Pool1 that contains two session hosts named Host1 and Host2. The session hosts use FSLogix user profiles. Host1 contains the local groups shown in the following table. Host2 contains the local groups shown in the following table. User1 connects to Pool and modifies his desktop. User1 reports that when he reconnects to Pool, the desktop modifications fail to appear. You need to ensure that User1 sees the modified desktop when he connects to Pool. The solution must minimize the impact on other user profiles. What should you do? - Exhibit: Fix FSLogix Profile Exclusion for a Single User

Add User1 to both FSLogix Profile Include list groups.
Remove Group2 from both FSLogix Profile Exclude list groups.
Remove User1 from Group3. Correct Answer
Remove Group3 from Group2.

Key Takeaways

The question tests FSLogix Include and Exclude list precedence, highlighting the trap of modifying group memberships that affect multiple users instead of targeting the single affected user.

This scenario addresses an Azure Virtual Desktop FSLogix profile issue where a user's desktop modifications are not persisting due to group membership in an FSLogix Exclude list. The page establishes that removing the specific user from the nested exclusion group is the correct solution to minimize impact on other users.

Common mistake: Choosing to remove the exclusion group (Option D) from the Exclude list, which inadvertently enables FSLogix profiles for all users in that group rather than just the affected user.

Expert Analysis

Why the Answer Is Correct

User1's desktop modifications are not persisting because User1 is a member of Group3, which is nested inside Group2—the FSLogix Profile Exclude List. Because FSLogix exclusions take precedence, User1 is receiving a local profile instead of the roaming FSLogix profile. Removing User1 from Group3 (Option C) directly removes User1 from the exclusion chain, allowing the FSLogix profile to apply. This action strictly targets User1, perfectly satisfying the requirement to minimize the impact on other user profiles.

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Adding User1 to the Include list (Option A) fails because FSLogix Exclude lists override Include lists; User1 would still be excluded. Removing Group2 from the Exclude lists (Option B) or removing Group3 from Group2 (Option D) would successfully stop the exclusion for User1, but both actions would also un-exclude every other user in Group2 or Group3, causing a broad impact on other user profiles.

Community Comment Notes

The community largely agrees that Option C is correct because it targets only User1. As user d7b83e2 noted, "Because it asks to minimize impact on other users, I would touch User1 only." Others recognize that while options like B or D would fix the issue, they fail the requirement to minimize impact; user smartleb961 pointed out that "b c and d would achieve this but the question states to minimis impact on other user profiles".

Official Reference

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/fslogix/concepts-container-exclude-include

This link opens the official vendor documentation in a new tab.

Exam Strategy

When dealing with FSLogix profile issues, always remember that the Exclude list takes precedence over the Include list. To satisfy "minimize impact" constraints, target the specific user's group membership rather than altering the FSLogix configuration groups themselves.

Community Votes

66%

17%

66% of anonymous learners picked answer C. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.

Discussion 6 contributions

Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors, not of islever. The comments shown first are the most substantive of the thread — ranked by depth, community endorsement and relevance; expand the list below to read the rest.

From public community threads 6

sergioandreslq 👍 1 Answered C

My understanding of the question is to enable session persistent to user1 and not apply any change to user2, in this context, we should go with C. However, if the objective is to enable persistent session for user1 and user2, the easy way is B or D which is remove the exclusion for group 3.
hwoccurrence 👍 1 Answered B

Rather than messing with User1’s group memberships (which could disrupt other permissions), the minimal‐impact fix is to remove Group2 from the “Exclude” lists so that no one in Group2 (including User1) is excluded from FSLogix roaming.
d7b83e2 👍 1 Answered C

If it was to minimize effort, I would go with D. Because it asks to minimize impact on other users, I would touch User1 only
AITANA_MANAGEMENT 👍 1 Answered D

User2 might have the same problem, so to minimize the impact on other users, we should remove group3 from group2.
smartleb961 👍 1 Answered C

b c and d would achieve this but the question states to minimis impact on other user profiles so would go with C.

Show 1 more comment

Moot2 👍 1 Answered C

C minimise other users so removed User1 from group 3 to stop the exclusion

Reader comments & corrections

No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.

Practice All AZ-140 Questions

Access 64 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.

View Full AZ-140 Practice Test →

← Back to AZ-140 Study Guide