Recommended Shared Folder Structure on FSx for Windows File Server Filesystem


I'm migrating several shares from multiple fileservers to a single FSx filesystem. I could use some recommendations for shared folder placement. These shares do not have any distinguishing characteristics that could be used for categorization. They are simply shares of various sizes published as unique folder targets within the same DFS namespace (e.g. \namespace\share1, \namespace\share2 etc.) This will be retained. Here are some options under consideration. In all instances, ACL inheritance is disabled.

  • All shared folders are staged under the default "share" folder.
  • All shared folders are staged directly under the Filesystem's D: drive
  • Create arbitrary top-level folders under the D: drive and then stage the shared folders within.


asked 10 months ago418 views
2 Answers
Accepted Answer

Years ago, while at a different company, I had the responsibility of consolidating file servers onto a single file server. For expediency of the project, I chose to create a directory structure on the new server of <name of old server #>\drive letter<old server #'s directory structure & share>. I setup CNAMEs of the old servers to the new server. Then I set up shares to match shares off the old servers (so, just further down the directory tree). Upsides (1) This allowed the migration to be fairly seemless to my user community. (2) It also allowed my system administrators to easily identify the old data, as there wasn't any renaming. (3) the migration from a process and coordination was faster than if I started trying to implement a new structure. Downsides: (1) Because some of the old server names were long, this elongated the directory tree and in some cases, I couldn't copy data because the tree from the root was too long - exceeding windows path length (I'd have to pick a share further down the tree to shorten the path). (2) Years later users still referred to the old server names, newly hired system administrators didn't know which server it was or they didn't know that there were CNAME aliases in place, and thought they were different. (3) adding structure never took place, in some cases, users would copy from one "server" to "another" - and that just duplicated data on the same server, as they didn't know it was all one and the same.

Please approve or upvote if this has been helpful.

answered 10 months ago
profile picture
reviewed 14 days ago
  • Thanks for the excellent analysis. I have the luxury of DFS namespace already in place but grouping shares by source file server is definitely a good idea!


To work out the best distribution of file shares within Amazon FSx you will need to balance performance and cost. The data you have on your existing file shares will tell you if there are any issues with your current structure that can be addressed by using the features of Amazon FSx. Read the documentation



to help you decide

answered 10 months ago
  • Thanks for the feedback. My request has less to do with cost and performance optimization and more to do with folder structure. I could do a better job restating. On a filesystem, should shares be created within the default share? What about right beneath the D:\ drive?

You are not logged in. Log in to post an answer.

A good answer clearly answers the question and provides constructive feedback and encourages professional growth in the question asker.

Guidelines for Answering Questions