www.benjaminathawes.com Open in urlscan Pro
66.147.244.160  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET //www.benjaminathawes.com/

<form role="search" method="get" id="searchform" class="searchform" action="//www.benjaminathawes.com/">
  <div>
    <label class="screen-reader-text" for="s">Search for:</label>
    <input type="text" value="" name="s" id="s">
    <input type="submit" id="searchsubmit" value="Search">
  </div>
</form>

Text Content

SHAREPOINT BUILDING BLOCKS


UNOFFICIAL BLOG BY BENJAMIN ATHAWES

Menu Skip to content
 * Home
 * About


SOLVING SITE AND DOCUMENT FOLLOW ISSUES IN SHAREPOINT 2013 CAUSED BY SECURITY
UPDATES

Although I’ve performed my own testing to support the content of this blog post,
all software updates should be regression tested in your specific environment
before being deployed to production. No two farms are exactly alike!

What’s the issue?


Last year, a client of ours reported that they were unable to follow sites in
SharePoint 2013 following the installation of an August 2015 security update for
Word Automation Services (KB3054858). The error message displayed was simply
“Sorry, we couldn’t follow the site”. As it turns out, this regression also
breaks SharePoint’s document follow functionality. This blog post identifies the
security updates (plural) that cause this problem, and explains the options that
are available to either avoid or resolve it.


If your farm is suffering from this problem, here are the error messages that
you will see when attempting to follow SharePoint 2013 sites and documents:








Has this been “officially” recognised by Microsoft as a regression?


No. However, the testing that I’ve carried out so far has convinced me that the
public updates listed below are responsible for the problem, and that it is not
environment-specific. Additionally, it looks as though a number of other folks
have encountered this issue at various times since August 2015, when the
regression was first shipped in KB3054858. 

Given that deploying these updates can cause a SharePoint Server 2013 farm to
“return to a former or less developed state” (the Oxford
Dictionaries definition), I’m going to describe this issue as a “regression”,
albeit an unofficial one.

Does this affect me?


This post is aimed at people that look after SharePoint 2013 farms that – for
whatever reason – are a little behind in terms of SharePoint updates. If you’ve
already deployed the October 2015 Public Update (KB3085567), or are on the
August 2015 Cumulative Update (KB3055009) or later then you shouldn’t be
affected. You may of course be affected by other regressions, particularly if
you have opted to install any recent cumulative updates. The August 2015 CU, for
example, contains two known regressions that Todd Klindt reminds us about on his
ever-useful SharePoint regressions page. That particular CU is also particularly
troublesome to install, sometimes requiring three attempts.


If you aren’t sure about the distinction between the different types of
SharePoint update that I’ve mentioned above (I think you should be able to tell
cumulative and public updates apart, for example), I’d recommend reading this
article by Stefan Goßner, a Senior Escalation Engineer at Microsoft. Since
public updates usually include SharePoint security fixes, I use the terms
“security update” and “public update” (PU) interchangeably for the remainder of
this article.


Are we definitely talking about the same issue?


If you think that your farm might be suffering from the site and document follow
issue that I’ve described, here is the ULS error that you should see when
attempting to follow a site:


Original error: System.MissingMethodException: Method not found: ‘System.String
Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.UserProfile.get_FollowPersonalSiteUrl()‘.



at Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.UserProfileServerStub.GetProperty(Object
target, String propName, ProxyContext proxyContext)

at Microsoft.SharePoint.Client.ServerStub.GetPropertyWithMonitoredScope(Object
target, String propertyName, ProxyContext proxyContext)

I’ve highlighted the get_FollowPersonalSiteUrl() method because we’ll be
revisiting that shortly.




Microsoft’s investigation


Our client uses SharePoint’s native social functionality extensively, so we
decided to escalate the site and document follow issue to Microsoft in an effort
to speed up the resolution. Microsoft Support provided the following statements
and recommendations:


 * The problem relates to a dependency between the
   Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll and
   Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.ServerStub.dll assemblies, which
   manifests itself when KB3054858 (released August 11, 2015) is installed
   without the August 2015 CU or later.
   
 * Although installing the August 2015 CU or later will resolve the issue,
   Microsoft recommended that we deploy the November 2015 CU (KB3101373). The
   precise reasons for that recommendation have not been disclosed to us yet.
   

Having considered the known regression that the November 2015 CU contains (it
breaks outbound search federation), our client decided to proceed with
Microsoft’s suggested course of action. Installing the November 2015 CU *does*
resolve the site and document follow issue. But that’s not the whole story.


My follow-up


Since deploying this fix, I’ve had some time to perform my own testing to help
determine which specific updates contain the site and document follow
regression. My intention was not to second-guess Microsoft’s recommendation, but
I did want to clearly understand the root cause of the problem in order to
ensure that I can provide folks with the right advice. In doing so, I’ve
concluded that at least four separate security updates released between August
and November 2015 can cause the regression, and that deploying the November 2015
CU is *not* the only way to fix it. Feel free to skip the end of this post if
you simply want to see the list of affected updates. If you’d like to see the
“evidence” that backs my assertions, read on.


I started my testing by configuring a local single-server lab environment in an
attempt to re-create the issue (I figured that even my mediocre PowerShell
skills could manage that). I installed SharePoint Server 2013 with Service Pack
1, then installed all security updates for SharePoint up to and including the
August 2015 PU (KB3054858). The site and document follow issues described by my
client immediately reared their ugly head. Keep in mind that my lab is sat on my
home machine, and is completely isolated from the client’s infrastructure.


I decided to fire up .NET Reflector and dig a little deeper. Having analysed
dependencies within Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.ServerStub.dll (the
file mentioned in the ULS entry), it appeared clear that the version of this
assembly that ships with KB3054858 relies on a method that was absent in my lab
farm’s version of Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll:




In contrast, the get_FollowPersonalSiteUrl() method was alive and kicking after
I upgraded my lab farm to the August 2015 CU, and I was once again able to
follow sites and documents. All this is expected behaviour based on the
Microsoft Support statements included earlier.





I was now keen to understand which SharePoint 2013 updates included the two DLLs
in question. Through liberal usage of Hyper-V checkpoints and reflector, I found
that:


 * Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.ServerStub.dll hasn’t changed since
   August 2015, and ALL SharePoint Server 2013 updates (cumulative and public)
   include it
   
 * The “missing” get_FollowPersonalSiteUrl() method was added to
   Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll in the August 2015 CU
   
 * All *cumulative* updates released since August 2015 contain
   Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll and therefore the “missing” method
   
 * However, the October 2015 PU is the ONLY *public* update released since
   August 2015 that contains Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll and
   therefore the “missing” method
   

To help clarify the version history of these assemblies, I’ve pulled together a
list of all cumulative and public updates that have been released for SharePoint
Server 2013 since August 2015. Note that I have excluded SharePoint Foundation
2013 updates, as those do not appear to include the two assemblies in question
(most likely because the User Profile Service Application doesn’t ship with the
Foundation SKU):


SharePoint Server 2013 updates released since August that include the
Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll assembly


Public Update that includes Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll  
Cumulative Update that includes Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll  
Update that does NOT include Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll

KB Type Release Date UserProfiles.dll version UserProfiles.ServerStub.dll
version KB3054858 PU August 11, 2015 – 15.0.4745.1000 KB3055009 CU August 11,
2015 15.0.4745.1000 15.0.4745.1000 KB3054813 PU September 8, 2015 –
15.0.4745.1000 KB2986213 CU September 17, 2015 15.0.4749.1000 15.0.4745.1000
KB3085567 PU October 13, 2015 15.0.4757.1000
  15.0.4745.1000 KB3085492 CU October 13, 2015 15.0.4757.1000 15.0.4745.1000
KB3085477
(replaces KB3054858) PU November 10, 2015 – 15.0.4745.1000 KB3101364 PU November
10, 2015 – 15.0.4745.1000 KB3101373 CU November 10, 2015 15.0.4771.1000
15.0.4745.1000 KB3114345 CU December 8, 2015 15.0.4779.1000 15.0.4745.1000
KB3114497 CU January 12, 2016 15.0.4787.1000 15.0.4745.1000

Note that this list my not be exhaustive – the security updates were mostly
identified by reviewing the list available within Windows Update. Please let me
know if I’ve missed off a SharePoint Server 2013 update that shipped between
August 2015 and January 2016.


Having identified that the October 2015 PU is the only public update released
since August 2015 that contains Microsoft.Office.Server.UserProfiles.dll, I was
keen to understand whether that update alone would “fix” the site and document
follow regression without having to install a cumulative update. Keep in mind
that Microsoft categorise cumulative updates as hotfixes that should only be
installed if they resolve specific problems, whereas security updates should be
tested and deployed as soon as possible.


I rolled back my lab environment to its original “regressed” state (SharePoint
Server 2013 with Service Pack 1 + all security updates up to and including the
August PU), and confirmed that I got the “Sorry, we couldn’t follow the site”
error. Once again using Hyper-V checkpoints, I ran through a number of different
scenarios to help confirm that the October 2015 PU irons out the site and
document follow regression:


 1. I installed the October PU (KB3085567) alone, with no other additional
    updates. Site and document follow functionality was fixed as I had
    anticipated.
    
 2. I rolled back to the August PU (KB3054858), and installed ALL outstanding
    SharePoint 2013 security updates up to and including January 2016. Given
    that the October PU was included, site and document follow functionality was
    fixed.
    
 3. I once again rolled back to the August PU, and installed all outstanding
    SharePoint 2013 security updates up to and including January 2016 EXCEPT the
    October 2015 PU. This time, site and document follow functionality remained
    broken.
    

Although clearly not exhaustive, these tests give me a level of confidence that
installing the October 2015 PU is one (perhaps the only) way of fixing – or
avoiding – the regression described here short of deploying a cumulative update.
With this information in-hand, my default approach to resolving this problem is
to simply test and install all outstanding security updates for SharePoint as a
first port of call.


In contrast – with limited time available to thoroughly investigate the root
cause – we followed Microsoft’s recommendation to install the November 2015 CU
for our client due to a pressing need to restore SharePoint’s follow
functionality. I now plan to point Microsoft Support at this post in order to
help understand whether the October PU would also have been a viable option, and
will post an update if I receive any further clarification.


If you decide to go ahead with the October 2015 PU (KB3085567), it should be
available for download via Windows Update if you’ve opted in to receive non-OS
updates. Security updates for SharePoint 2013 sit within the “Office 2013”
category and look like this if you happen to be installing them via Windows
Update (remember to opt in to non-OS updates):





One should of course be testing and installing all security updates, but this
specific PU resolves the follow regression described in this post. Remember to
test all this in your environment first, and please stop by to let me know how
you get on!


Q&A


Should I just install all available security updates rather than the specific
update that you’ve mentioned?


Yes, I suggest you test and deploy all security updates. Make sure, however,
that KB3085567 is included if you’ve run into the site and document follow
issue.


Which updates can cause the site and document follow regression?


The security updates highlighted in red in the table will cause the site and
document follow issue described here *if* they are installed without the October
2015 PU, or the August 2015 CU or later.


So do I need to install any cumulative updates?


As far as I can tell, no CUs are required to fix the site and document follow
issue.


Why would anyone run into this problem now, given that one can simply “install
all security updates” to avoid it?


I don’t expect that many farms will suffer from this regression given that the
October 2015 PU includes the goodies required to avoid it. However, considering
that patching SharePoint can be very time consuming, I anticipate some folks
might run into this if they are behind on patching and need to deploy a subset
of the outstanding security updates for SharePoint (perhaps to minimise an
outage window).


Should I run PSConfig after installing security updates?


Yes – see why [Microsoft] recommend / require to run the Configuration Wizard
also for Security fixes


This entry was posted in Uncategorized on January 15, 2016 by ben@bathawes.com.


THE SHAREPOINT CLOUD SEARCH SERVICE APPLICATION – INITIAL THOUGHTS

In May, I was lucky enough to attend Microsoft’s Ignite 2015 conference in
Chicago along with a handful of other Content and Code colleagues. A stand-out
session for me unveiled the forthcoming SharePoint Cloud Search Service
Application, which – among other enhancements – will finally deliver a
consolidated on-premises and cloud Search Index, that lives in SharePoint
Online. The news that this thing will be available for both SharePoint Server
2013 and 2016 was particularly interesting.

You can read more over on the Content and Code blog, in a post titled why we
care about the SharePoint Cloud Search Service Application.

This entry was posted in Conferences, SharePoint 2013, SharePoint 2016 on June
15, 2015 by ben@bathawes.com.


INTRODUCTION TO BASIC AND HA SHAREPOINT SERVER FARMS IN MICROSOFT AZURE IAAS

Too long, didn’t read (TLDR) summary




 * The Azure SharePoint Server Farm application template appears to be targeted
   at development and testing scenarios.
 * You get two topology options: a “basic” farm (3 VMs, no HA) and a
   “high-availability” farm (9 VMs). The HA option costs about twice as much per
   month.
 * It cost me about £10 to “spin-up”, then de-allocate an Azure SharePoint
   Server Farm, but your mileage may vary.
 * I’ve uploaded a SPSFarmReport of a vanilla “high-availability” Azure
   SharePoint Farm for you to peruse at your leisure.

On 9th July 2014, Microsoft published an article titled Microsoft Azure
Continues to Deliver Rapid Innovation in the Cloud . Amongst other
announcements, that article introduced the idea of templates within Azure
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) for multi-machine/tier applications such as
SharePoint:


“Create, deploy, monitor and manage rich virtual machines’ based applications,
and manage virtual networks within a fully customizable Portal experience. In
addition to creating simple virtual machines, we are adding the ability to
automate the deployment of rich multi-machine application templates with a few
clicks. With this, deploying a multi-tier, highly-available SharePoint farm from
the portal will be a few clicks away!”


Sure enough, a quick trip over to the Azure Preview Portal confirmed that this
functionality is available within the gallery (for me at least):





In this blog, I briefly note down my thoughts on how this offering has been
positioned, then go on to discuss what you get, and some of the main assumptions
that Microsoft have made when putting these templates together. Note that I have
no “inside” information – everything here is inferred from the Azure Preview
Portal, and inspection of the VMs that are provisioned when creating an Azure
“SharePoint Server Farm”.


When might we deploy an Azure “SharePoint Server Farm”?


Looking at the screenshot above of the Azure Preview Portal, it isn’t obvious
whether the Azure SharePoint Server Farm is intended for development, testing,
production or all of the above. The Azure SharePoint Server Farm article is
clearer, as it differentiates between a “basic” farm (three VMs, no HA) and a
“high-availability” farm (nine VMs with HA), and briefly notes their intended
purpose (emphasis added):


 * “You can use this [basic] farm configuration for a simplified setup for
   SharePoint app development or your first-time evaluation of SharePoint 2013.”
   
 * “You can use this [high-availability] farm configuration to test higher
   client loads, high-availability of the external SharePoint site, and SQL
   Server AlwaysOn for a SharePoint farm. You can also use this configuration
   for SharePoint app development in a highly available environment.”
   

As you can see, it appears that an Azure SharePoint Server Farm is intended for
development, test and evaluation purposes. There is no mention of production
workloads, and I speak to some of the possible reasons for that below.


What do I get?


By clicking the “Create” button in the Azure Preview Portal, you will either
create a “basic” or “high-availability” SharePoint Server 2013 farm. The
topologies of those farms are shown below:


“Basic” Azure SharePoint Server Farm (3 VMs, no high-availability), from the
Microsoft Azure site





“High-availability” Azure SharePoint Server Farm (9 VMs, including a SQL Server
2014 AlwaysOn availability group), from the Microsoft Azure site





Clearly there are a ton of configuration options within each VM that are not
spoken to above. Here are some of the key design choices that I noted whilst
perusing my Azure SharePoint Server farm:


 * A new forest and root domain are created along with your Azure SharePoint
   Server farm. If you already have existing AD DS infrastructure in Azure IaaS,
   there does not appear to be a way of installing SharePoint within that
   infrastructure.
   
 * A SQL Server 2014 AlwaysOn availability group is created automatically. This
   requires SQL Server 2014 Enterprise Edition, which isn’t cheap (as reflected
   in the VM costs shown below).
   
 * The following choices were made regarding SharePoint Server 2013:
   
   * SharePoint Server 2013 Service Pack 1 is installed (build 15.0.4569.1000).
     
   * A single content-serving Web Application is created, with a single root
     path-based Site Collection. This does not align with Microsoft’s
     recommendation to use host-named Site Collections for new SharePoint 2013
     environments.
     
     * Interestingly, port 80 is open within the Windows Firewall, exposing this
       Web Application to the Internet. We would typically expose SharePoint to
       the Internet using a reverse proxy server such as the Windows Server 2012
       R2 Web Application Proxy, and ensure that all Web Applications are
       SSL-secured for security reasons.
       
   * No Service Applications are provisioned aside from those that are created
     automatically when creating a new farm (the Security Token Service and
     Application Topology Service).
     
   * Only the Setup and Farm Accounts are provisioned. In production, it is
     unlikely that those accounts would be sufficient, assuming that Microsoft’s
     best practices related to least-privilege configuration are followed.
     
   * All SharePoint VMs host an instance of the Distributed Cache Service. Some
     Microsoft staff (including Steve Peschka) recommend dedicated Distributed
     Cache servers for performance and stability reasons.
     
 * The default pricing tier/specifications SQL Server and SharePoint VMs do not
   meet Microsoft’s minimum hardware and software requirements for SharePoint
   2013. For example, Web and Application servers require 12 GB RAM and 4 CPU
   cores per server, and the default pricing tier selected for those VMs (A2
   Standard) provides 3.5 GB RAM and 2 cores. I expect the default
   specifications for Azure SharePoint Server Farm VMs to be insufficient per
   SharePoint 2013 Service Application resource requirements, even if those
   VMs are intended for development or testing purposes.
   

These design points underline the idea that an Azure SharePoint Server Farm is a
starting point for development and testing. We still need to apply additional
effort to get these guys into a state that is ready for anything but the most
basic SharePoint development. Today, that effort would most likely take the form
of applying a PowerShell script to automate “remaining” Service Application, Web
Application and systems configuration in order to produce a farm that is aligned
with the production environment(s) that it supports.


It’s worth noting that if an Azure SharePoint Server Farm were intended for
production usage, the act of creating it via the Azure Preview Portal does not
remove the need to plan and design. Once we arrive at a design, it is likely
that we would choose the “high-availability” option for production as a starting
point, then add or remove VMs to meet our requirements. Identity integration
would be a key design consideration given that “Azure SharePoint Server Farms”
come with a dedicated Active Directory Forest (essentially a Resource Forest).
Taking all of this into account, I question how much time we would save by using
the Azure SharePoint Server Farm template in production, and can see why the
feature is marketed as a development/test capability.


How much is it?

It’s always challenging to talk about pricing in a blog post, as Microsoft
licensing agreements differ from customer to customer. What I will do is put
together a quick “back of the napkin” price list so that you can see the
relative cost of the “basic” and “high-availability” Azure SharePoint Server
Farm options. Note that these are list prices, and I only list the default
pricing tier costs mentioned on the Azure Preview Portal. Additional licensing
costs (such as those required for SharePoint) are likely to apply, and an MSDN
subscription may make this more affordable, as recently noted by a Microsoft
employee. I’m no licensing expert, so please check with your licensing reseller
before committing to anything.


List prices for “basic” Azure SharePoint Server Farm (default pricing tiers on
pay-as-you-go) on July 20th, 2014


VM role Quantity Default pricing tier Monthly cost Domain Controller 1 A1
Standard 42.61 SQL Server 1 A5 Standard 2130.67 SharePoint 1 A2 Standard 85.23  
    £ 2258.51

List prices for “high-availability” Azure SharePoint Server Farm (default
pricing tiers on pay-as-you-go) on July 20th, 2014


VM role Quantity Default pricing tier Monthly cost Domain Controller 2 A1
Standard 85.22 SQL Server 2 A5 Standard 4261.34 SQL Server File Share Witness
(FSW) 1 Basic A0 9.47 SharePoint 4 A2 Standard 340.92       £ 4696.95

A few points to note about the pricing shown in the Azure Preview Portal (and
listed above):


 * The default pricing tier/specification of individual VMs in each “tier” is
   the same in both the “basic” and “high-availability” options.
   
 * As explained earlier in this post, the default pricing tier/specifications
   SQL Server and SharePoint VMs do not meet Microsoft’s minimum hardware and
   software requirements for SharePoint 2013. For example, Web and Application
   servers require 12 GB RAM and 4 CPU cores per server, and the default pricing
   tier selected for those VMs (A2 Standard) provides 3.5 GB RAM and 2 cores. I
   expect the default specifications for Azure SharePoint Server Farm VMs to be
   insufficient per SharePoint 2013 Service Application resource requirements,
   even if that farm is intended for development or testing purposes. Of course,
   you can bump up those specifications at an additional cost.
   
 * SQL Server VM costs appear to include SQL Server licensing fees, whereas
   SharePoint VMs do not. This is reflected in the “choose your pricing tier”
   dialogue shown below.
   

“Choose your pricing tier” dialogue for SQL Server VMs





“Choose your pricing tier” dialogue for SharePoint VMs





Personally, I find it a little odd that you can’t change the SQL Server license
that is applied when creating a SharePoint farm via the Azure Preview Portal.
Although SQL Server Enterprise licensing is required for the “high-availability”
option (per usage of a SQL Server 2014 AlwaysOn availability group), I can’t
think why an Enterprise license would be required for the “basic” option, and
imagine this choice significantly increases cost.


By the way, if you find yourself wondering how to reduce costs whilst a
development or test environment is not in use, I have found the Stop-AzureVM
PowerShell cmdlet to be very useful. As noted in that article, shutting down all
VMs in a cloud service releases the associated public virtual IP address, which
may be a problem if you have public DNS infrastructure that points to that IP.
In my case, this hasn’t been a problem as the Azure SharePoint Server Farm that
I created is temporary in nature. Also note that stopping (de-allocating) VMs
means that you won’t incur compute charges, but you will still get charged for
other resources such as storage.


Stopped (de-allocated VMs), after running Stop-AzureVM





For what it’s worth, I incurred a cost of just over £10 for “spinning up” a
“high-availability” Azure SharePoint Server Farm, then de-allocating it right
away using Stop-AzureVM. You can see in the chart below that the “OTHERS”
category makes up a small percentage of the overall cost, which presumably
includes storage. Remember that costs vary by region and by subscription, so
your mileage may vary.


Cost of “spinning up” a “high-availability Azure SharePoint Server Farm” with
default options selected





Wrap-up


That’s all for now. If you’d like to know a little more about the configuration
of a “high-availability” Azure SharePoint Server Farm, feel free to download an
SPSFarmReport that I ran post-creation.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized on July 20, 2014 by ben@bathawes.com.


ULSVIEWER.EXE DOWNLOAD (MSDN ARCHIVE VERSION)

17/09/2014 update: Microsoft have released a new version of ULSViewer, which you
might want to try instead of this one.

For reasons that are unknown to me, the MSDN Archive Gallery has recently been
taken down. That gallery contained ULSViewer.exe, a much-loved tool that no
SharePoint guy or gal should be without. Although there are many versions of the
tool out there in the wild, I believe this is the version originally created for
Microsoft’s internal support teams by Dan Winter. I’m not sure if this is the
“best” version as such, but it certainly works for me.

ULSViewer appears to be subject to the MSDN Code Gallery Binary License, meaning
that we are free to install, use, copy and distribute the software. To my
surprise, I couldn’t find the tool elsewhere online, so have uploaded it to this
blog. Enjoy!

Download ULSViewer 2.0.3530.27850

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in SharePoint 2007, SharePoint 2010, SharePoint 2013,
Tools on May 26, 2014 by ben@bathawes.com.


SPC14 WORD CLOUD SUMMARY

A couple of weeks back, I was lucky enough to be sent along to the Microsoft
SharePoint Conference 2014 with a handful of my colleagues at Content and Code.
For me, this conference gave me a lot of confidence that we are implementing the
right solutions for our clients that use SharePoint in its private
(on-premises/managed hosting) and public (Office 365/Microsoft Azure)
cloud flavours. This was my first SPC – so I can’t really compare it to previous
events – but it was a blast!

Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on March 26, 2014 by ben@bathawes.com.


USING HOST-NAMED SITE COLLECTIONS IN SHAREPOINT 2013 WITH MYSITES

Although these guys have been around since WSS 3.0, host-named site collections
haven’t received a great deal of attention up until the last year or so.
Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Architecture, SharePoint 2013 on December 11, 2013 by
ben@bathawes.com.


HOW TO RENEW YOUR ADFS 2.0 TOKEN SIGNING CERTIFICATE IN SHAREPOINT

Over the past year or so, Content and Code have found that Active Directory
Federation Services (ADFS) has become a more common requirement for both cloud
and on-premises SharePoint deployments. Although we find that it is often
implemented to facilitate single sign on across otherwise disconnected
infrastructure, we have also deployed it to support claims augmentation for
SharePoint environments that utilise SAML claims. As such, we have built up a
fair chunk of experience deploying and operating ADFS in both production and our
own internal development environments. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in ADFS, SharePoint 2010 on July 31, 2013 by
ben@bathawes.com.


RESOLVING PARTIAL ENCRYPTION PROBLEMS WITH BITLOCKER

As illustrated in this blog post, encryption can result in irrecoverable loss of
data. It is strongly recommended that you take a backup before using BitLocker
to encrypt existing data. The approach outlined here worked for me but you may
not be as lucky. Use at your own risk!

Continue reading →
This entry was posted in Uncategorized on March 17, 2013 by ben@bathawes.com.


CONFIGURING ACTIVE DIRECTORY IMPORT FOR A SHAREPOINT 2013 USER PROFILE SERVICE
APPLICATION USING POWERSHELL

Writing an IT PRO focussed blog post on any aspect of the User Profile Service
in SharePoint is tough as there is a good chance that someone like Spence
Harbar will come along and write a better/more informed one. However, whilst
configuring a new SharePoint 2013 environment today I found myself wondering how
one automates configuration of the “new” Active Directory Import mode – there
doesn’t appear to be much out there on Technet. I figured a quick post would be
useful in the absence of more detailed information. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in SharePoint 2013 on January 15, 2013 by
ben@bathawes.com.


USING SPWEBSERVICE.FILEWRITECHUNKSIZE TO TURN OFF SHREDDED STORAGE IN SHAREPOINT
2013 RTM

14/11/2013 update:  Chris Mullendore, a Microsoft PFE has written a  great
blog that discusses both Shredded Storage and RBS. He whole-heartedly recommends
using the default FileWriteChunkSize settings. I’ll leave this blog up just to
illustrate that it is possible to modify this value, but it appears to be one of
those “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” settings.

Over the last few weeks I’ve been looking at some of the new capabilities in
SharePoint 2013 from an infrastructure perspective, focusing mainly on search
and the topic of this blog post: Shredded Storage. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in SharePoint 2013 on January 7, 2013 by ben@bathawes.com.


POST NAVIGATION

← Older posts



DISCLAIMER

This site is not associated with Microsoft in any way. All views expressed are
the author's own.
Search for:


RECENT POSTS

 * Solving site and document follow issues in SharePoint 2013 caused by security
   updates
 * The SharePoint Cloud Search Service Application – initial thoughts
 * Introduction to Basic and HA SharePoint Server Farms in Microsoft Azure IaaS
 * ULSViewer.exe download (MSDN archive version)
 * SPC14 word cloud summary


RECENT COMMENTS

 * ben@bathawes.com on Solving site and document follow issues in SharePoint
   2013 caused by security updates
 * Adrian on Solving site and document follow issues in SharePoint 2013 caused
   by security updates
 * Thomas Jackson on Top 10 mistakes made by SharePoint 2010 administrators
 * Prince Mathur on Real world PowerShell usage in SharePoint 2010
 * Ben on SharePoint, SQL server fill factor and index rebuilds – a correction


ARCHIVES

 * January 2016
 * June 2015
 * July 2014
 * May 2014
 * March 2014
 * December 2013
 * July 2013
 * March 2013
 * January 2013
 * December 2012
 * November 2012
 * August 2012
 * June 2012
 * April 2012
 * January 2012
 * November 2011
 * October 2011
 * August 2011
 * July 2011
 * April 2011
 * March 2011
 * December 2010
 * November 2010
 * October 2010
 * September 2010
 * August 2010


CATEGORIES

 * ADFS
 * Architecture
 * Certifications (MCTS/MCITP)
 * Conferences
 * Content Deployment
 * Disaster Recovery
 * Hardware
 * IIS
 * ISA/TMG
 * Networking
 * PowerShell
 * Presentations
 * Search
 * Security
 * SharePoint 2007
 * SharePoint 2010
 * SharePoint 2013
 * SharePoint 2016
 * SQL
 * Tools
 * Top 10…
 * Uncategorized
 * Upgrading
 * Virtualisation
 * WAN Considerations
 * Windows 8


META

 * Log in
 * Entries RSS
 * Comments RSS
 * WordPress.org

Proudly powered by WordPress