Microsoft Gossip

Please post interesting insights into this vendor’s business and products/services here.

If you wish to post anonymously, please email david.ferris@ferris.com. Please identify yourself so that David can determine that the posting should be taken seriously. Alternatively, you can phone him on +1 415 367 3436. We’ll post your material, without identifying you.

One Comment

  1. dferris
    Posted August 25, 2008 at 8:26 AM | Permalink

    Anonymous Comment about Frontbridge spam control, 8/22/08

    “I’ve been a Frontbridge customer for around 5 years. A few things have gotten better under Microsoft, and some things have gotten worse. They’ve always been good about false positives, which was why we chose them, and I think one a year is about right. What has gotten worse is reliability. They’ve had several problems that delayed mail in the past few months. The main thing that has gotten better is price, but also less spam is coming through.”

  2. dferris
    Posted December 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM | Permalink

    RUMOR–December 17, 2008–We’ve just heard from a reliable source that Microsoft will be dropping further development of HMC, Microsoft Solution for Hosted Messaging and Collaboration. Ie, version 4.5, the current version, is the last.

    This is presumably bad news for third parties offering hosted versions of Exchange that have adopted HMC.

    Can anyone add to this?

  3. Posted February 16, 2009 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    We’re going head to head with the Microsoft Live@edu solution (focus on email, IM and collaboration) in a 400 user school at the moment. The consultant we’re working with has already flagged support as an issue with our competitor taking more than a week to answer pre-sales questions.

  4. Joe Vegh
    Posted May 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

    Hi David,

    Our company was about the purchase an email archiving solution, so when we have seen that there is a ex 2010 Beta, I have let my guys to test it.

    Here are our findings so far:

    – The archiving database is in the same exchange database. Not in a separated one. You can have many copies of that database, as the only redundancy concept that MS is going to follow in this version is “replication”.

    This means:

    a- Exchange is going to have larger databases as the database will have “live” data + archived data.

    b- If the plan is to have a replica of this data in another server, the replica is going to be the same large database with not only archived data: it will have live data as well.

    – The archiving method is the same as creating a PST, but in the server. Users will have a secondary archive mailbox as they currently have using PST files.

    – Outlook 2003 users will not be able to use this function. Outlook 2007, probably do, but the info about it is vague.

    – If the customer decides to purge old documents that are older than the retention, will need to use MRM (which was present in 2007 with the same procedure). This is a not really well done feature in 2007 and apparently that haven´t changed in 2010.This feature may impact server performance (taken from MS docs): “…Running the managed folder assistant is a resource-intensive process. You should only run the managed folder assistant when your server can tolerate the extra load…“

    – Retention rules or archiving rules, created by users, can only be done using Outlook 2010. OWA 2010 can see and run the rules, but it cannot create them. Previous versions of Outlook are currently excluded

    Can you please comment those? We are afraid that there will be no real archiving solution from MS until the end of 2010. So should we be waiting or get some third party solution?

    thank you for you advice.

    Joe Vegh

  5. Vaguely
    Posted June 8, 2009 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    Hi David,

    Great little ‘Heads up’ on E14/2010 archiving…one question I do have is to do with the database sizes. One of the great attractions of 3rd Party archiving solutions (apart from the ease of use of tools to satisify legal) is their ability to move mail out of the Exchnage databases, thus enabling them to be kept undercontrol…how does Exchange handle this aspect? I note you mentioned there is no stubbing, does this imply that I am going to end up with unwieldly multi terabyte datastores?

    Many thanks
    Vaguely

  6. Posted June 10, 2009 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

    Exchange 2010 will allow for Messaging Records Management (MRM)-based archiving of data from a primary mailbox to an archive mailbox – which must be located on the same store as the primary mailbox. End users can either drag and drop manually, or apply policy tags to items which MRM will move in the background. Administrators or compliance officers can also set MRM policies which apply regardless of user intervention.

    So this means that – as you suggest – organizations that are especially concerned with single instance storage (SIS) or other storage issues will want to either carefully-plan their storage architecture around Exchange 2010 or consider a 3rd party archiving solution. Microsoft is continually working on substantial performance enhancements with every release of Exchange, though I have not seen any published performance metrics on Exchange 2010 yet – I imagine we will see those once the final code is released to manufacturing later this year.

    Our perception is that Microsoft has built the archiving functionality in Exchange 2010 primarily as a mechanism to deal with PSTs once and for all, in essence taking on the storage archviing market. If you put yourselves in Microsoft’s shoes, any time a company has to deploy 3rd party tools — SANs, storage archives, etc. — this adds to the overall cost of running Exchange Server, and proves to be a sticking point for Microsoft as they position their solution against competitors such as Google Apps, etc. Of course, now that they have the archive built, they will go after the broad market that has no archiving solution yet, and will start chipping away at the low end of the compliance archiving market as well as their solution evolves over the coming years.

    Regarding Joe’s question about client support … I haven’t seen specifics from Microsoft on this yet but typically Microsoft addresses the next-shipping platform (in this case Outlook 2010) as their primary target and if they have time in their development cycle will try and back-port functionality into previous releases, starting with n-1 (i.e., Outlook 2007). This of course depends on how challenging the engineering effort is and whether they had time to get the required plumbing into Outlook 2007 SP2. I’m not sure if this will happen — ask your local Microsoft TAM for details or stay tuned.

    David

  7. DLivengood
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

    As with many things Microsoft based, it’s easier to understand some product features when you look at them through Microsoft goggles. So, as for archiving, let’s look at why people generally implement archiving: 1) reduce the storage in Exchange 2) for compliance reasons. The 3rd party archiving tools have generally evolved from one of these points of focus and, later, have adopted the other. So, from the perspective of 1) from Microsoft’s perspective, the reason for 1) in the first place is that Exchange storage has been “expensive”. Given the heavily reduced IO profile for E2010, Microsoft’s view is that your production server will already be using cheap storage…so why do you need to move the data out? (Again, there are many reasons, especially for separating the archive, I’m just saying that I believe this stance to be the intent behind Microsoft’s archiving). BTW, if ‘backups of the archive’ are part of the reasoning for 1)…well, if you have 3 copies of the data laying around on cheap storage, Microsoft might say, “why do you need backups?”. As for 2) well, E2010 provides a much improved capability even over E2007. More to the point, 1 & 2 are built into the product…so that may offer further reduction in price (along with storage).

    As for client access, as David said, O2010 will be the focus. Given that the archiving information is returned as part of the Autodiscover data, they may have some flexibility to do something with O2K7, but I’d not plan on that.

    I’m not speaking for Microsoft, clearly, I’m just saying that when you look at things through their eyes, the things they implement and how they are implemented are more easily understood. Clearly feedback from their customers will get them to fine tune, or change, things through subsequent SPs and versions.

Post a comment

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