Email Archiving for Exchange, From H&S

We’ve just heard about Exchange@PAM, an email archiving product for Exchange from H&S Software. It integrates tightly with file and SharePoint archiving sister products. Exchange@PAM is not well known. Sales started in 2005, and it now has reasonable penetration as a tier-two player. It has about 1,200 customers.

Thoughts:

  • It has, H&S assures us, integrated administration across email and the other types of electronically stored information. The user perspective is also consistent, we understand. That’s unusual, and good. For many archiving systems, the world of email archiving is separate from that of other data types.
  • It’s got reasonable penetration. Clearly, not in the same league as Symantec Vault, but it’s a player and deserves to be recognized as such.
  • It’s an Austria-based product. The vendor is a bit worried that the U.S. market is still biased against not-invented-here technology. That may be somewhat true, but with globalization all that is quickly eroding.
  • H&S appears to be on a sound financial footing.

In short: Exchange@PAM deserves to be better known.

David Ferris

One Comment

  1. Posted March 13, 2008 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    Exchange@PAM has been around for a while and only really has a stronghold in the DACH market (The German army is one of their customers. In the US this product is also rebranded and sold under the Sunbelt Exchange Archiver brand. It has a fundemental flaw which is that it leverages ‘deemphasized’ technology to capture the information from Exchange (i.e. store event sinks).

  2. dferris
    Posted March 14, 2008 at 9:02 AM | Permalink

    Martin–many thanks. Couple of questions:
    * “DACH”–is that Germany, Austria, Switzerland? If not, what?
    * Can you elaborate on the problem with the deemphasized technology–I’m not sure I fully understand your point

    –David

  3. Posted March 24, 2008 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    Martin let’s address your comments in reverse order;

    1. “leverages ‘deemphasized’ technology”

    Not really, as we all know event sinks are a thing of the past so our direct achriving feature now utilizes WebServices, its replacement.

    However to imply that exchange@PAM only uses event sinks for capture would be totally incorrect. We have multiple ways to initiate the archiving process, which include;
    – Automated Archiving – archive of e-mail based on age, size, etc. and then scheduled and run automatically
    – Threshold Archiving – archive items based on the quota established in Exchange or by the PAM Admin
    – Manual Archiving – archive e-mail immediately based on request from end-user
    – Journaling Archiving – my least favorite, archive from the journaling mailbox.

    2. Only has a stronghold in the German market

    It would be more accurate to say that it dominates in all the markets that it has concentrated on. Currently H&S has almost 400 customers in the US and has only started to concentrate on this market since January. Customers in the US market include some lesser known organizations of the US government like, US Army, US State Department, and USDA.

  4. Posted March 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    I suspect that “deemphasized” should read “deprecated”.

  5. Max King
    Posted May 26, 2008 at 3:12 AM | Permalink

    I looked at H&S exchange@PAM and it did not meet my expectations:

    Pro:
    – Feature-rich on the surface
    – Implies that it can be used for backup scenarios (which I doubt because of the way it does journaling)

    Con:
    It lacks mandatory Enterprise fatures,

    – Journaling does not rely on Exchange journaling, (or log shipping like Mimosa) – I had the same feeling as Martin Tuip that it is based on Event Sinks and therefore questionable.
    – No full-featured discovery app (Persistent searches, workflow)
    – PST Migration is very basic (Wizard -driven, statistical owner calculation which is error-prone)
    – Completely unknown french indexing technology
    – Fail-over/scalability issues with the storage server being the single-point of failure (Assumed from reading manuals)
    Exchange, File and Sharepoint are separate products / installs and don’t build the same cohesive framework as EV.
    – No Windows event log-reporting,
    – No plain-text logs and error-messages
    – No reporting, no monitoring
    – The setup is a joke (manually create SQl databases, copy LDAP paths from AD, etc.)

    Overall I cannot see a single reason for someone outside Austria to consider this over Enterprise Vault or the leading other solutions. (See Gartner, Forrester, etc)
    I am not sure about the engineering skills their dev team has in Eastern Europe / Slovakia, but given that the EV development team is 3 times bigger than H&S as a company and that H&S does DMS/ECM and SAP archiving as well, I have no high hopes about the future for them when it comes to mail archiving

    Fact: The company exists for +15 years, but they have not managed to be of any relevance in any other market they are in: DMS? SAP Archiving? Document imaging? They are always runners up and don’t seem to make it even in the Top 10 in any of those markets – at least I could hardly find any analyst information about them in those areas. Risky bet.

    They claim to have 400+ accounts in the US within 6 months, but I would think those numbers are marketing collateral: Mimosa as a “hot” company, US-based and with analyst backing has taken 2 years to get to 1000 customers world-wide – with more funding and more people. Also I would be interested in the average customer size, as a 25 seat customer does not really count if you claim to be an enterprise product.

    Max

  6. Luke hendin
    Posted October 16, 2008 at 5:24 AM | Permalink

    [Comment edited to remove ad hominem aspect. Please be civil.]

    Its round about time we stop beating about the bush and get to real hardcore matter, which is being compliant and meeting regulations and being able to retrieve these emails easily, as Morgan Stanley expressed the company’s frustration at creating a digital e-mail archive from thousands of tapes. “How do you get it into the database?” he asked. It’s clearly not an easy process.

    This was using EMC which charges exuberant amounts money for a solution that is clearly not worth the money.
    The end result was Morgan Stanley got hit with a $1.58 billion judgment… now that is a lot of money considering, Its largest archive has 2.6 billion e-mail messages in it, and represents 350 terabytes (TB) of data on tape. This was compressed to 22 TB and restored on EMC Corp. Clariion disk. The process took six months and didn’t work.
    So I would say H&S big thumbs up and also they are due to be partnered with Double-Take in the near future.
    So turn a compliance pain in to a performance gain and use H&S it does exactly what it say’s on the tin.

  7. Robert Hamm
    Posted November 7, 2008 at 5:56 AM | Permalink

    For email archiving I can also like archive manager that we’ve been using successfully for the lastest weeks.

    It captures all e-mail messages to a central repository allowing easily archiving and advanced searching on email content and attachments.

    Great thing about this tool that it keeps only a single copy of eash message and attachment on it’s database saving a lot of diskspace.

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. To comment, first join our community.