Research Microsoft best practices for FSLogix profile sizing and standardize recommendations

[kristopherjturner]

Problem

Profile sizing recommendations diverge between the AVD and SOFS repos:

Source	Default Size	Assumption
AVD repo (docs/guides/fslogix.md)	30 GB max per user	50% fill rate at steady state
SOFS repo (docs/architecture/capacity-planning.md)	10–20 GB typical per user	10–20% growth margin
SOFS repo (docs/architecture/avd-considerations.md)	5–50 GB typical (persona-based)	Varies by user type

These aren't necessarily contradictory, but someone planning capacity across both repos sees three different numbers with different assumptions. This erodes confidence in our recommendations.

Research Required

1. Microsoft official best practices — What does Microsoft recommend for FSLogix profile container sizing?
   • FSLogix documentation
   • AVD best practices
   • Profile container vs. ODFC container sizing differences
2. Persona-based sizing — What Microsoft recommends per user type:
   • Knowledge worker (Office, Teams, browser)
   • Power user (dev tools, large datasets)
   • Task worker (single app, kiosk)
   • Executive (light usage, Outlook-heavy)
3. Growth factors — What growth rate Microsoft recommends (annual, steady-state)
4. Azure Local specifics — Any differences from cloud AVD sizing due to local storage constraints

Acceptance Criteria

• Document Microsoft official recommendations with source URLs
• Create a standardized persona-based sizing table
• Agree on a default recommendation and growth margin
• Update AVD repo docs/guides/fslogix.md with aligned numbers
• Update SOFS repo docs/architecture/capacity-planning.md with aligned numbers
• Update SOFS repo docs/architecture/avd-considerations.md with aligned numbers
• Ensure both repos reference the same sizing table

Affected Repos

• azurelocal-avd — docs/guides/fslogix.md, config/variables.example.yml (default size)
• azurelocal-sofs-fslogix — docs/architecture/capacity-planning.md, docs/architecture/avd-considerations.md