<div>
Thanks for your responses. &nbsp;They were very helpful, particularly the link from mkline71.
</div>


Thanks for your responses.  They were very helpful, particularly the link from mkline71.

<div>
<div class="content wysiwyg-content">
Understanding there is not a black and white answer, in general terms is it preferable to structure group policy objects so that each one contains more rules, and so you end up with a group having fewer GPOs applied, or is it better to have more GPOs, each containing a more specific type of rules?<br />
<br />
Conceptually I prefer the having more GPOs that have more specific purposes but I am wondering if there is any impact on performance, login time, odds of getting policies properly applied, etc. by one approach or the other.<br />
<br />
From your experiences, which approach do you prefer?<br />

</div>
</div>


Understanding there is not a black and white answer, in general terms is it preferable to structure group policy objects so that each one contains more rules, and so you end up with a group having fewer GPOs applied, or is it better to have more GPOs, each containing a more specific type of rules?

Conceptually I prefer the having more GPOs that have more specific purposes but I am wondering if there is any impact on performance, login time, odds of getting policies properly applied, etc. by one approach or the other.

From your experiences, which approach do you prefer?


More or fewer group policy objects?

Active Directory (AD) is a Microsoft brand for identity-related capabilities. In the on-premises world, Windows Server AD provides a set of identity capabilities and services, and is hugely popular (88% of Fortune 1000 and 95% of enterprises use AD). This topic includes all things Active Directory including DNS, Group Policy, DFS, troubleshooting, ADFS, and all other topics under the Microsoft AD and identity umbrella.