The Electric Wand : Business

Microsoft Online Services prices cut

Ewan — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:37:13 GMT

The snappily-titled Microsoft Business Productivity Online Services (BPOS) offering, announced some price cuts the other day…

I heard from someone internally that the price cuts were driven by increased economy of scale – ie. as more customers signed up for BPOS, the cost per customer of providing the services has fallen, and the saving is being passed on.

There’s an online pricing calculator to get an estimate of what it would cost to adopt, but if we took an example of 250 seats of Exchange Online (ie not the full BPOS suite), it would be around £805 per month, or just under £10,000 per annum.

Now that might sound like a lot for only 250 seats, but if you compare with the license costs to buy a server or two, 250 Client Access Licenses and the Enterprise CAL for email protection, you’d be looking at around £15k for software licenses, plus hardware costs (let’s say another £5-10k) and the staff costs to maintain the Exchange environment. It might start to look pretty attractive to outsource the whole “keeping email running” task, and just pay for it to be online.

Some customers like the online services model since it is an operational expense (OPEX) rather than having capital expenses for servers & storage hardware, which is depreciated over a number of years.

Finally, an example of where Online Services might suit particularly well… one fairly well known company (who shall remain nameless for the moment), were still muddling along on an old Exchange 5.5 environment. On Wednesday, the server shuffled off this mortal coil to join the choir invisible, causing a good deal of consternation in the business, who were now completely without email.

I’ve said for a long time, that Exchange is the only mission critical system in most businesses, which affects everyone immediately. If the CRM or billing or the payroll systems fell over, sure, it would be important – but most people wouldn’t know right away that it had happened. Email goes down, and most businesses will feel pain right away.

Back to example company. As fire rained from the sky, they took the decision at 4:30pm to buy 110 BPOS accounts, which were provisioned in 15 minutes and the business was fully back up with email up and running, later that evening.

Pinpoint a Microsoft Partner

Ewan — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:20:02 GMT

This site has had something of a quiet launch – I first saw it a couple of weeks ago and was really impressed – it’s called Pinpoint and is a new take on the question, “How do I find a good Microsoft partner?”

Simply enter a search (a name of a known partner, or any element of the technology or solution you’re interested in), and a location, and you’ll see results shown on a map, with a list of matches below.

What’s interesting is the ability to review partners or solutions – so if and when this site gets a bit more use, we should see not just a linear list of partners who have the skills, but the ability to see who gets the best reviews (a bit like on Tripadvisor or Amazon). If you’ve had a good (or bad!) experience with any Microsoft partner, please add a review – it might help someone else to choose the right solution partner for them.

If you work for a Microsoft partner, make sure you’re listed on here with some sensible detail – one of the guys in my team, Matt aka virtualboy, was showing this site to a partner only the other day. Top of the list of results came their main competitor… You have to be in it, to win it, as they say… Make sure you have your products & services listed!

Pinpoint is now linked from the Microsoft UK homepage, via the “Experts” page at http://www.microsoft.com/uk/experts/, which also has more detail about the different types of partner and why you may need their services and help.

Apple put the ‘Networks’ in their place

Ewan — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:46:49 GMT

Having just read Andrew Orlowski’s article over on The Register, it chimes exactly with a belief I’ve had since the original iPhone came out and showed a clean pair of heels to pretty much every other single device: someone had to put the mobile operator networks in their place, and only Apple were in the right place & time to do it.

As I’ve said previously on here, I’ve been a fan of Windows Mobile since day one, and I recall the frustration with the first generation Smartphones, that the mobile operators exerted so much influence not just on what the device would look like, but what software capabilities it had. The whole design of the application locking of Smartphone (which is the single biggest impediment to the easy spread of applications, a la the Apple App Store), was down to operators demanding that degree of control over the devices… or else there’d be no room on the networks for them.

In some ways, Apple’s brazen approach to the iPhone and it choosing the networks, rather than the other way round, has helped turn the industry on its head. I’m sure Google would have found a way to market with Android, but the fact that T-Mobile doesn’t offer the iPhone (in the US, at least) sure made it a lot more receptive to the boys from Mountain View, I'd wager.

It can be a dangerous game looking to the past for analogies that will prove future outcomes …

Look at the mess in the financial markets as proof – the CFO of Goldman Sachs said in the summer of 2007 that they were seeing 25-standard deviation moves, several days in a row… *

… but what Apple has done to break the shackles of the network operator, could be equivalent in effect to what happened at the dawn of the PC compatible industry. Through a combination of reverse engineering the original PC BIOS, and the fact that the software – DOS – was available from the same guys who provided it to IBM, the control that Big Blue exerted on the design, supply and pricing of that market was effectively wrested from them, initially by a rag-tag of would-be competitors (though some did make it, such as Compaq).

Just like the fixed-line phone companies have had to reinvent their business models numerous times – see Bob Cringley’s archive for lots of commentary on this hobby horse – maybe history will relegate mobile network operators to being a connection utility rather than controlling the content and the whole user experience, as they at one point wanted to do.

Still, Apple has a lot still to do, to be the saviour of the industry … it could still end up as a footnote in the history of this part of the race, with someone else coming along to take the finish line.

//E

* … meaning their predictive statistical model that was based on historical events, was telling them that things that will statistically NEVER HAPPEN were occurring regularly. What does that tell you? The model is now WRONG.

According to Tim Hartford from the FT, who I heard give a talk on this, their models said that:

3 std devs would occur once in every 3 years
4 std devs, once every 126 years
5 std devs, once since the last Ice Age
6 std devs, once since man started walking upright
7 std devs, once in 3 billion years…

… so 25 Std Devs would be something that has never and, statistically, will never, occur.

Business continuity – it’s a people thing, not just a premises one

Ewan — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:44:00 GMT

I had a really interesting discussion with a customer last week, when we were musing over the effects that the snow had on UK businesses. It was another example – like the floods which have hit parts of the country over the last few years – of a threat to business continuity which it’s easy to overlook.

Most businesses have prepared some contingency for what IT should do when it all goes wrong – starting with individual equipment failure (using RAID disks, redundant power supplies & the like), to clustering of services and replication of data to be able to survive bigger losses, either temporarily (like a power cut) or for longer-term outages (like loss of connectivity to a datacentre, maybe even loss of the datacentre itself).

What the weather conditions taught us the other day was that the people are even more important than the premises – the customer said it was ironic, that all their systems were up and running well, it was just that nobody was there to consume them.

Warwick Ashford from Computer Weekly writes about how their publisher, Reed Business Information, has built remote access into their business continuity plans. Interestingly, most of the discussion focussed on how to use VPN technology to connect to the office.

Funny, really. With Outlook & Office Communicator not needing to use a VPN to securely connect back to my office, I spent most of the WFH-time connected, productive, but not using a VPN at all.

When the weather outside is frightful…

Ewan — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:21:07 GMT

… the UC technology is soooo delightful.

OK, it’s cheesy as you can get, but very true. The weather forecast on Sunday night was for heavy snow, and sure enough we awoke on Monday to about 4-6 inches of fresh snow – something that many countries would take in their stride, but in southern England, we just don’t have the infrastructure to cope. [since it’s such a rare event].

I had decided on Sunday night that I was probably going to stay at home, so changed all the face/face meetings I had scheduled for Monday, to phone/video calls.

One director at Microsoft sent an e-mail round to his team on Monday morning:

SNOW CHANGE: Team meeting to be changed LIVE MEETING ONLY! DO NOT DRIVE!

I have been clearly informed that South England does not own snowploughs. And as I look out the window at the 5 inches of snow with no snow tires on my car, as a Canadian who has driven in very big snow storms, I know when not to drive – and this is one of those times. It will be too risky. So, we will probably trim the meeting to the MYR presentation and maybe 2 other topic. More to come – but don’t drive! Looking forward to our meeting – ‘see’ you all there :-).

Thanks;

Michael

I also had a half-day partner meeting which had been scheduled for weeks; that was converted to a Live Meeting so everyone could join remotely. In this instance, the actual partners were stuck on motorways, or holed up at the airport, so in the end it was rearranged for another day.

It was amazing to see how, if the infrastructure is in place to allow it, some companies just flick to having (nearly) everyone work remotely and it not drastically affect productivity. OCS Product Manager Sean Olson wrote about the “Snow Day” phenomenon that happens to Redmond every so often.

In fact, in the mid-December incident hit the news over here, with a bus skidding through a barrier and hanging over the I-5 freeway. Here’s an article with a great VR picture of the scene.

As it happens, we released OCS 2007 R2 yesterday. Also, there’s a report which should be published soon, looking into the business impact of deploying UC at Microsoft, using Forrester Research’s methodology for measuring business value.

The outcome? The RoI for Unified Comms is so clear that it paid for its procurement & deployment in 2 months.

How Microsoft can help you save money

Ewan — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:54:13 GMT

There's been much said & written about the credit crunch, the downturn, the recession - whatever you call it yourself, it means that the future's looking a good bit less certain than it was, and pretty much everyone is tightening their belts and bracing themselves for whatever is coming.

Microsoft's Chief Operating Officer, Kevin Turner, wrote an all-staff email a couple of months ago highlighting a number of things that could save customers money, and since then, there has been an avalanche of papers, presentations, initiatives, marketing plans etc etc, focused on that theme.

My problem statement

The problem I see in a lot of this stuff is pretty simple: the good people who put together the collateral start with a conclusion in mind...

Sharepoint marketing folks will write a proposal about how Sharepoint can be used to make people more productive, therefore save money through efficiencies.
Windows Server guys will talk about how Windows Server 2008 can cut power usage, which has a direct correlation to reducing both the carbon footprint and the utility bills.

... and so on. All well and good, and some of the output has great stories about real people using the technology to make a real difference. A cynical viewer might observe, though, that the message sometimes looks like "Cut your operating costs, by implementing Microsoft™ Office Sharepoint Server 2007® etc". Yeah, very good, but it wasn't the act of installing Sharepoint that cut your costs, it was what it allowed you to do differently, or better.

It's coming together, though

What takes longer than the initial flurry of "this product can save you money" information, is weaving together a more holistic view of the kinds of issues that real world customers are experiencing, then figuring out what all the different capabilities & features of products can do, and applying them in order of importance to help solve the problems. Fortunately, there's some cracking collateral now, at

http://www.microsoft.com/uk/leverage/
(and it's sub-sites, like the Manage Costs one)

I'm going to write some more on the specific topic of reducing cost, in the coming weeks. Stay tuned...

Virtuali(z)sation & datacenter power

Ewan — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:58:58 GMT

It's been very quiet here on the Electric Wand for the last month or so:

I took a new job in December which means things have been pretty hectic at work. I'm now managing a new group, and lots of time spent building up a great team.
Just back from Seattle from a week's Microsoft internal technical conference.
To be honest, I haven't had much to talk about on the blog :)

The TechReady conference I went to in Seattle had a few interesting themes, but much of the technical stuff presented is still internal only so can't be discussed (yet) online. A good chunk is probably "subject to change" anyway ...

There are a few themes which were either covered in a number of different sessions, or which really made me think hard about the way IT is going - amongst them Virtualisation (I do hate using the "z", even though it's technically OK - it just seems so un-British), the march towards multi-core parallelism (instead of clock speed race) and the whole Green IT agenda of power usage.

I'm planning to write a bit more about both these topics in current weeks, along with business case for Office Communications Server, but here's some food for thought:

A major enterprise datacenter could well be consuming 10s of Megawatt/Hs of power - something that could be equated to many, many flights or other so-called demons of carbon emissions. A back-of-an-envelope calculation of all Microsoft's own datacenter power usage (including all the online services) would equate to over 100 Jumbo Jet flights from London to Seattle every day. That's 100 planes, not 100 passengers...

This power usage topic is one which is going to grow in importance - not just because power prices are rising (eg a 100 MW/h power usage for a large internet datacenter could easily cost more than £15m per annum in power costs alone). One project internally in Microsoft is looking at the actual power usage and the equivalent tonnes of CO2 emissions of all of its datacenters - a concept that's surely to become more mainstream in the future.

Citing datacenters by renewable energy sources (such as Google's massive datacenter by the Colorado river in Oregon) makes the power usage more palatable, but it doesn't remove the need to reduce heat (and air conditioning requirements) and overall power usage - even if it means employing people to physically go round pulling the plugs at night-time on the myriad rack servers.

Anyway, as I said, more on this topic in coming weeks - in the meantime, I've not gone away ... just waiting for the right time to pipe up :)

The downside of online shopping

Ewan — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:07:00 GMT

I bought myself an early Christmas present a few weeks ago. One Saturday morning, sitting at the home PC whilst noodling about on the web, I decided it was time to replace the old warhorse and get something a bit more modern.

So I surfed off to my favourite PC web emporium and specced up a nice new Shuttle box with a quad-core low voltage CPU, 2 GB RAM, 1Tb of disk and a half decent video card. A very good deal at less than £750 delivered, I thought. All from a trusted, well-used website that I've spent a small fortune with before.

Problem #1 came when the expected ship-date sailed into the past, and as time got nearer Christmas, I feared for getting hold of this new and shiny toy in time to give me an excuse to excuse myself from the washing-up on the big day.

Repeated attempts to contact the web-vendor failed - "you need to call the web-orders guy on this different number", said the company's 'customer services' people - and the web guy was either letting his phone ring out (and no voicemail) or was engaged. For two whole days.

Eventually (a week later than scheduled), the goods were showing as "shipped" on 'reputed' web company's site.

This after the goods were showing as in stock on the day I ordered, that is, the day they charged my credit card. Oh, and to add insult to injury, they'd dropped the prices of some of the items the day before they shipped my order... which of course, I'd paid at the higher price.

Problem #2 came when the courier was showing the following day as being "with driver" - and yet nothing happened.

And the following day, it was still the same state.

And the next.

And when I left to take the 1.5 hour round-trip drive to their depot to find out what was going on... guess what... it was really out with the driver this time, and would be delivered before 5:30. REALLY? Yes, said the man. DEFINITELY? Of course.

At 5:20 and with no parcel in possession, I set off to the depot again. Arriving at (cough) 5:55, the nice man took the number of the consignment, checked where it was, and a mere 15 minutes later arrived with the parcel in his hand.

"Why was it not delivered today, as you promised?", I asked.

"Oh, there's a real backlog on that route and they didn't get to deliver it today", says he.

"And what would you do with that parcel now, had it not been delivered?"

Try again tomorrow. A Saturday. When there's nobody in the office. And won't be until the New Year, now. That is, at least a week later than it should have been delivered, according to plan.

And the delivery company says we have two days to pick the parcel up from them if they try to deliver it and nobody's there, after which they return to sender (see Problem #1).

It's all made MUCH worse by the fact that this particular courier firm (who I did not choose; the vendor did, because it suited them and was presumably cheaper) is a franchise operation so there's no single "throat to choke" - they just put you through to the handling depot if there's any problem. If the depot is incompetent and/or swamped there's nothing you can do.

In the hour or so that I spent (in total) standing in the depot, the phone was ringing continuously and nobody was answering. There were people sitting at their desks doing "work", and yellow-jacketed delivery guys hanging about, but nobody manning the phones.

So: I spent 2.5hrs on hold to these people; maybe 1 hour hanging about waiting to be dealt with at the actual depot; 2.5 hours or so in total driving down and back to chase them up because they don't answer the phone, don't respond to faxes* and don't have an email address...

I sometimes wonder: is e-commerce really worth the hassle, compared to going down to the local PC shop who can give you advice, sell you what they have in stock and let you take it away with you..?

Would I willingly use this same company again?

Damn. I've just ordered a couple of new bits for the new PC I have, from the same people - it's easy, they're cheap, and they promise to deliver by Christmas Eve.

Bets, anyone?

* This was a story from another guy in the queue. He worked for a different delivery company, yet he was picking something up from this one.

He said, his company get fined (internally) if they don't answer the phone after a few rings. He spent 1.5 hours on hold to this company from 4:30pm to 6:00pm the night before. At 6:00pm the message changed from (and I kid you not) "There are MANY people ahead of your in the queue" to "The offices are now closed... try again tomorrow").

He sent them a fax, but got no reply.

Merry Christmas, by the way.

Bah. Humbug.

Unified Communications licensing made easy

Ewan — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:35:00 GMT

Well, hopefully.

I get asked a lot about what licenses customer need when they want to deploy Exchange & Office Communications Server, in order to keep themselves legal & compliant. It's sometimes a bit confusing that there are several versions of the core products, and often add-on licenses such as external connectors and the likes.

Taking Exchange & OCS separately, the basics are pretty straightforward, really, and (as ever) the devil is in the detail. That detail is on the "How To Buy" pages for Exchange and OCS, respectively.

Server/CAL basics

Like most Microsoft server products, both Exchange and OCS operate on a "Server/CAL" model, where you buy the actual server software, then acquire the access license to give you the rights to use that software from a client machine. CALs can be assigned to people ("users"), meaning the holder of a CAL can access the software from any machine, or they're assigned to a machine ("device"), which could allow any number of people to use that machine.

In businesses, the "per user" model is the most common model, since you could license users to be able to connect to the server from their home PC or from an internet cafe, or several devices at a time (including PCs, browsers, phones, Blackberry devices etc). In some circumstances (eg shift workers, or students sharing lab PCs), it makes more sense to license "per device", and you can mix the two together - so you might have 200 users licensed "per user" but then buy 25 "per device" licenses for the call-centre workers who might actually number 75, but working in shifts and only 25 at a time. Clear?

Along with Sharepoint, Microsoft introduced a new CAL type to Exchange & OCS in the 2007 wave of servers - the Enterprise CAL. The deal here is that some of the most advanced, new, functionality in the server software needs an Enterprise CAL to be in possession by the user or device, and it is an add-on to the Standard CAL which everyone will have anyway. You don't need to buy Enterprise CALs for everyone - only the users or devices which will make use of that additional functionality.

There's no actual installation of a CAL, and there's little real tracking of CAL usage: it's a legal requirement for the organisation operating the software to ensure that you have enough licenses, and that in itself can sometimes be a challenge. Using software like System Centre Configuration Manager, you can keep check on what users are doing, and with partner services such as Software Asset Management, you can get help with keeping track of what you've bought and who's using what.

Standard vs Enterprise Edition servers & CALs

Where some confusion sometimes lies is that, for years, we've had Standard & Enterprise Edition servers, where the more advanced functionality (like clustering) was often part of Enterprise Edition, and cost more. Now that there are Standard & Enterprise CALs, things start to look murky. Some literature even refers to the CALs as "Client Access License Standard/Enteprise Edition" which only heightens that confusion.

There is no dependence on CAL versions vs Server versions: ie you could use clustering in the Enterprise Edition server, but still use just Standard CALs to access it. Or you could deploy a single, Standard Edition server, and have all the users taking advantage of the most advanced functionality that comes as part of the Enterprise CAL. And, of course, you can have a mixture of all of the above, as you see fit.

Exchange 2007

The Standard edition of Exchange 2007 is a good bit more capable than Standard Edition previously - there is now effectively no data storage limit to the server (compared to a 16Gb and later, 75Gb, limit in Exchange 2003), though you can only have 5 databases per server (compared to a single one in earlier versions at Standard Edition, and a 50-database limit in Exchange 2007 Enterprise Edition). Apart from some exceptions in how Messaging Records Management works, the only other real difference is that Standard Edition server doesn't support clustering.

If you want to run clustered Exchange, you need Exchange Enterprise Edition on top of Windows Enterprise Edition (which actually provides the clustering technology that Exchange uses) for the clustered mailbox servers themselves, but all other Exchange boxes can be Exchange Standard Edition running on top of Windows 2003 Standard Edition.

When it comes to CALs, the Standard CAL gives you everything (and more) that Exchange had in the past; but some of the new functionality, like Unified Messaging or Managed Folders, requires the Enterprise CAL. See the CAL Comparison for more information

Office Communication Server 2007

OCS follows a very similar model to Exchange; Standard Edition server does everything that Enterprise Edition does, except it isn't clusterable and isn't designed to scale out to the same degree.

OCS Standard CAL gives you the basics of Instant Messaging & Presence/identity, whereas Enterprise CAL adds voice capabilities (which were previously a separate license for LCS2005), along with new stuff like on-premise Live Meeting data conferencing.

There are other options with OCS... if you want to extend the presence/identity piece out to the public networks (AOL, MSN and Yahoo), there's a subscription license called Public IM Connectivity. PIC subscriptions are collected by Microsoft then paid to the public networks in lieu of the adverts that you'd be seeing if you'd been using their own client, rather than Office Communicator).

There are also external connectors for both OCS and Exchange which could allow you to provide services to external users who aren't part of your organisation (eg giving your clients a mailbox/presence entity).

When Microsoft people say "Enterprise CAL" they don't always mean it

I often hear MS folk talk about "Enterprise CAL" or "E-CAL", but they don't mean the Exchange Enterprise CAL which allows you to use Unified Messaging, or the OCS Enterprise CAL which gives you voice & data conferencing. They're talking about something that should really be referred to as the Enterprise CAL Suite. It's a collection of both the Standard and Enterprise CALs for a number of different products, available to buy as a package, depending on what licensing agreement you have with Microsoft.

The idea with Enterprise CAL Suite is that if you decided you wanted the full gamut of Unified Communications, rather than having to buy Exchange Standard CAL + Enterprise CAL (since the Enterprise CAL is an "additive" to the Standard), and also buy OCS Standard + Enterprise CALs, you could acquire all of them along with various others (like Sharepoint Enterprise CAL, Forefront Client Security and many more), for a packaged cost.

In true economic terms, the more you want to buy, the lower the unit costs of each becomes. In buying OCS Standard + Enteprise CAL and Exchange Standard + Enteprise CAL, you'll have almost spent as much as the Enterprise CAL Suite costs, so going to the Suite will add a whole slew of additional licenses and services that you could take advantage of.

Now, I hope that's all clear. I think I'm going to go off and lie down now.

Explore the Microsoft Enterprise CAL Suite by

Product

Business Need

When bean counters start counting things they don't understand the value of.

Ewan — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:58:34 GMT

I've been having a discussion with an old friend, who's telling me of a large financial institution that have suddenly started getting very picky about spending on IT. Maybe it's the financial environment right now - the tabloids are desperate to paint a doomsday scenario where all the banks are on the verge of collapse, whereas in reality it's just a blip out of the norm...

Anyway, this scenario is driving the IT people crazy - instead of investing in IT, the accounts department is back to thinking about how they can reduce the spend.

The other day, I was talking about the Gartner-inspired Infrastructure Optimization models and how they can be used as a way of trying to show what value investment in IT can have - maybe this particular company needs to step up a gear to show their bean counters how short term it might be to slash budgets and expect people to just muddle along.

Reminds me of another story about a company whose penny pinchers decided to stop ordering stationery supplies for the stock cupboards on each floor in the building - the idea was that if you had to go to a designated Keeper Of The Stationery Supplies in order to get something, you'd bother rather less and stop being so wasteful.

What happened in that instance was that people spent so long wandering the halls looking for staplers/pens/paperclips etc, that the move to save a few $$ simply caused huge frustration in the end user and probably cost them a fortune in lost productivity too.

I first came across this particular scenario when I saw a spoof video lampooning the draconian stationery rationing measures.

The company was Microsoft.

Stationery supplies were reinstated in the ensuing months.

Sometimes it takes ground-floor people power to make the spreadsheet jockeys take note :)

The business case for Exchange 2007 - part IV

Ewan — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:12:02 GMT

Another installment in a series of posts outlining the case for going to Exchange 2007. Previous articles can be found here.

GOAL: Make flexible working easier

"Flexible Working" might mean different things to differing organisations - some might think of mobile staff who turn up at any office with a laptop, sit at any free desk and start working - others might imagine groups of workers who can work from home part- or even full-time. Whatever your definition is, there's no doubt that the technology which can enable these scenarios has evolved in great strides in recent years.

RPC Over HTTP - magic technology, even if the name isn't

The "Wave 2003" of Exchange Server 2003/Outlook 2003/Windows XP SP2/Windows Server 2003 brought to the fore a technology which wasn't really new, but needed the coordination of server OS, server application, client OS and client applications to make it available: if you've been using or deploying RPC/HTTP, you'll know exactly what it does and why it's cool. If you haven't deployed it, the name might mean nothing to you... in short, the way in which Outlook talks to Exchange Server when you're on the internal network, can be wrapped up within a secure channel that is more friendly to firewalls - hence "tunneling" that protocol (RPC) inside a stream of data which your firewall can receive (HTTP, or more correctly, HTTPS).

What this means in practice is that your users can connect in to your environment using a widely-supported network mechanism (ie HTTPS), and without requiring a Virtual Private Network connection to be established in the first place. This manifests itself in the fact that as soon as a user's PC finds a connection to the internet, Outlook will attempt to connect to your network using HTTPS, and if it succeeds, will become "online" with Exchange and (if they're using the default "cached mode" of Outlook) will synchronise changes between Outlook and Exchange since the client was last online.

A sometimes overlooked benefit of using regular internet protocols to connect the client & servers together, is that the communication will be able to leave one protected network, traverse the unprotected internet within a secure channel, then enter a second protected network. This means that (for example) your users could be connected to a customer or partner's own internal network, but be able to go through that network's firewall to reach your Exchange server. If you required a VPN to be established to connect Outlook and Exchange, then it almost certainly won't be possible to use a protected network as your starting point, since the owners of that network will not allow the outbound connections that VPN clients use, but will allow outbound connections on HTTPS.

Now, RPC/HTTP was part of Outlook and Exchange 2003, however it's been improved in Exchange 2007 and is easier to get up and running. If you're also using Outlook 2007, the client configuration is a whole lot simpler - even if it's the first time a user has ever connected to Exchange, all they may need to know is their email address and password, and Outlook will be able to find the Exchange server and configure itself using whatever default you've set. The technology behind the ease of configuration is called the Autodiscover Service, and the whole area of "connecting over the internet" functionality has also been given a more descriptive (to the non-techies, anyway) term: Outlook Anywhere.

From an end-user point of view, this technology is almost silent - for remote laptop users working at home, they often just start up their laptop, which connects automatically to a home wireless network and out to the internet, then Outlook just goes straight to Exchange and they're online. Deploying this technology in Microsoft saw the volume of VPN traffic reduce dramatically, and the calls to the help desk concerning remote access dropped significantly too.

NET: Using Outlook 2007 and Exchange 2007 together simplifies the provision of remote access to remote users, particularly when using Outlook in "cached mode". This configuration reduces, or even removes, the need to provide Virtual Private Network access, which could make the user experience better and save management overhead and expense.

Web client access instead of Outlook

Another element of flexible or remote working might be to use the web to get to email - maybe your remote users just want to quickly check email or calendar on their home PC, rather than using a laptop. Maybe there are workers who want to keep abreast of things when they're on holiday, and have access to a kiosk or internet cafe type PC. Or perhaps your users are in their normal place of work, but don't use email much, or don't log-in to their own PC?

Outlook Web Access has been around for a number of versions of Exchange, and just gets better with every release. The 2007 version has added large areas of functionality (like support for the Unified Messaging functionality in Exchange, or huge improvements in handling the address book), meaning that for a good number of users, it's as functional as they'd need Outlook to be. It's increasingly feasible to have users accessing OWA as their primary means of getting to Exchange. One possible side benefit here is a licensing one - although you'd still be required to buy an Exchange Client Access License (which gives the user or the device the rights to connect to the server), you won't need to buy Outlook or the Microsoft Office suite.

Outlook Web Access not only gives the web-user the ability to use email, calendar etc, but it can also provide access to internal file shares and/or Sharepoint document libraries - where the Exchange server will fetch data from internal sources, and display to the reader within their browser. It can also take Office documents and render them in HTML - so reading a spreadsheet or document could be done on a PC with no copy of Office available, or simply can be read without needing to download a copy of that document for rendering client-side in an application.

It's possible to control what happens to attachments within OWA - some organisations don't want people to be able to download attached files, in case they leave copies of them on public PCs like internet cafes - how many users would just save the document to the desktop, and maybe forget to delete it? Using server-side rendering of documents, all traces of the document will be removed when the user logs out or has their connection timed out.

Even for predominantly office-based users, OWA can provide a good way of getting to mail from some other PC, without needing to configure anything or log in to the machine - in that respect, it's just like Hotmail, where you go to a machine and enter your username and password to access the mail, rather than having to log in to the whole PC as a given users.

If you deploy Outlook Anywhere (aka RPC/HTTP), you'll already have all the infrastructure you need to enable Outlook Web Access - it uses the same Exchange Client Access server role (in fact, in Microsoft's own deployment, "Outlook Anywhere" accounts for about 3/4 of all the remote traffic, with the rest being made up of OWA and Exchange Activesync).

NET: Outlook Web Access gives a very functionally-rich yet easy to use means of getting to data held on Exchange and possibly elsewhere on the internal network, in a secure means of communications to an external web browser. OWA 2007 has replicated more of Outlook's functionality (such as great improvements to accessing address books), such that users familiar with Outlook will need little or no training, and users who don't have Outlook may be able to rely on OWA as their primary means of accessing mail.

Mobile mail with ActiveSync

Exchange 2003 SP2 and an update to Windows Mobile 5 introduced the first out of the box "push mail" capability for Exchange, which forms part of the Microsoft Exchange Activesync protocol that's also licensed to a number of other mobile device vendors. This allows Exchange to use the same infrastructure that's already in place for Web access and for Outlook Anywhere, to push mail to mobile devices and to synchronise other content with them (like calendar updates or contact information). The Exchange Activesync capability in Exchange 2007 has been enhanced further, along with parallel improvements in the new Windows Mobile 6 client software for mobile devices.

Now it's possible to flag messages for follow-up, read email in HTML format, set Out of Office status, and a whole ton of other functional enhancements which build on the same infrastructure described above. There's no subscription to an external service required, and no additional servers or other software - reducing the cost of acquisition, deployment, and (potentially) in TCO. Analyst firm Wipro published some research, updated in June 2007, looking into TCO for mobile device platforms in which they conclude that Windows Mobile 5 and Exchange Activesync would be 20-28% lower in cost (over 3 years) than an equivalent Blackberry infrastructure.

NET: Continuing improvements in Exchange 2007 and Windows Mobile 6 will further enhance the user experience of mobile access to mail, calendar, contacts & tasks. Overall costs of ownership may be significantly lower than alternative mobile infrastructures, especially since the Microsoft server requirements may already be in place to service Outlook Anywhere and Outlook Web Access.

A last word on security

Of course, if you're going to publish an Exchange server - which sits on your internal network, and has access to your internal Active Directory - to the outside world, you'll need to make sure you take account of good security practice. You probably don't want inbound connections from what are (at the outset) anonymous clients, coming through your firewall and connecting to Exchange - for one, they'll have gone through the firewall within an encrypted SSL session (the S part of HTTPS) and since you don't yet know who the end user is, an outsider could be using that connection as a way of mounting a denial of service attack or similar.

Microsoft's ISA Server is a certified firewall which can be an end-point for the inbound SSL session (so it decrypts that connection), can challenge the client to authenticate and can inspect that what is going on in that session is a legitimate protocol (and not an attacker trying to flood your server with traffic). The "client" could be a PC running Outlook, a mobile device using Activesync or a web browser trying to access Outlook Web Access. See this whitepaper for more information on publishing Exchange 2007 onto the internet using ISA.

The Wal-Mart Effect

Ewan — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:08:31 GMT

Here's an interesting book on a business force which is changing the way that the US economy works, if you believe what the author is saying. Wal-Mart (which owns ASDA in the UK) has been growing like crazy in recent years, to the point where they're big enough, supposedly, to have a direct impact on the inflation rate in a economy the size of the US.

One startling aspect of this exposé, is the effect that a company as powerful as Wal-Mart can have on its suppliers... normally reported as a bad thing, but there are good things too. An example of the latter was of one company who was shipping goods into the US, which were then taken to its own distribution centres, repackaged and sent out to Wal-Marts distribution chain, and then on down to the stores.

Once the two companies started sharing more detailed information with the other, Wal-Mart revealed that it was sending empty trucks back to its regional centre, from stores all over the country, which could be used by this supplier - so the supplier started importing its goods bound for Wal-Mart into Florida, and using Wal-Mart's own trucks to ship the merchandise straight to their own distribution centres, thereby cutting out waste & expense.

It's an interesting read - there may even be some parallels between Wal-Mart and Microsoft, some positive and others not. Microsoft's Chief Operating Officer used to be Wal-Mart's CIO, responsible for (among other things) one of the largest databases in the world, where Wal-Mart's suppliers could see into the sales of their products across the entire distribution chain, as they happened... Quite some system...

The business case for Exchange 2007 - part III

Ewan — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:45:11 GMT

This is a continuation of an occasional series of articles about how specific capabilities of Exchange 2007 can be mapped to business challenges. The other parts, and other related topics, can be found here.

GOAL: Lower the risk of being non-compliant

Now here's a can of worms. What is "compliance"?

There are all sorts of industry- or geography-specific rules around both data retention and data destruction, and knowing which ones apply to you and what you should do about them is pretty much a black art for many organisations.

The US Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 came to fruition to make corporate governance and accounting information more robust, in the wake of various financial scandals (such as the collapse of Enron). Although SOX is a piece of US legislation, it applies to not just American companies, but any foreign companies who have a US stock market listing or who are a subsidiary of a US parent.

The Securities Exchange Commission defines a 7-year period for retention of financial information, and for other associated information which forms part of the audit or review of that financial information. Arguably, any email or document which discusses a major issue for the company, even if it doesn't make specific reference to the impact on corporate finance, could be required to be retained.

These requirements understandably can cause IT managers and CIOs to worry that they might not be compliant with whatever rules they are expected to follow, especially since they vary hugely in different parts of the world, and for any global company, can be highly confusing.

So, for anyone worried about being non-compliant, the first thing they'll need to do is figure out what it would take for them to be compliant, and how they can measure up to that. This is far from an easy task, and a whole industry has sprung up to try to reassure the frazzled executive that if they buy this product/engage these consultants, then all will be well.

NET: Nobody can sell you out-of-the-box compliance solutions. They will sell you tools which can be used to implement a regime of compliance, but the trick is knowing what that looks like.

Now, Exchange can be used as part of the compliance toolset, and in conjunction with whatever policies and processes the business has in place to ensure appropriate data retention is put in place, and that there is a proper discovery process that can prove that something either exists or does not.

There are a few things to look out for, though...

Keeping "everything" just delays the impact of the problem, doesn't solve it

I've seen so many companies implement archiving solutions where they just keep every document or every email message. I think this is storing up big trouble for the future: it might solve an immediate problem of ticking the box to say everything is archived, but management of that archive is going to become a problem later down the line.

Any reasonable retention policy will specify that documents or other pieces of information of a particular type or topic need to be kept for a period of time. They don't say that every single piece of paper or electronic information must be kept.

NET: Keep everything you need to keep, and decide (if you can) what is not required to be kept, and throw it away. See a previous post on using Managed Folders & policy to implement this on Exchange.

Knowing where the data is kept is the only way you'll be able to find it again

It seems obvious, but if you're going to get to the point where you need to retain information, you'd better know where it's kept otherwise you'll never be able to prove that the information was indeed retained (or, sometimes even more importantly, prove that the information doesn't exist... even if it maybe did at one time).

From an email perspective, this means not keeping data squirreled away on the hard disks of users' PCs, or in the form of email archives which can only be opened via a laborious and time consuming process.

NET: PST files on users' PCs or on network shares, are bad news for any compliance regime. See my previous related post on the mailbox quota paradox of thrift.

Exchange 2007 introduced a powerful search capability which allows end user to run searches against everything in their mailbox, be it from Outlook or a web client, even a mobile device. The search technology makes it so easy for an individual to find emails and other content, that a lot of people have pretty much stopped filing emails and just let them pile up, knowing they can find the content again, quickly.

The same search technology offers an administrator (and this would likely not be the email admins: more likely a security officer or director of compliance) the ability to search across mailboxes for specific content, carrying out a discovery process.

Outsourcing the problem could be a solution

Here's something that might be of interest, even if you're not running Exchange 2007- having someone else store your compliance archive for you. Microsoft's Exchange Hosted Services came about as part of the company's acquisition of Frontbridge a few years ago.

Much attention has been paid to the Hosted Filtering service, where all inbound mail for your organisation is delivered first to the EHS datacentre, scanned for potentially malicious content, then the clean stuff delivered down to your own mail systems.

Hosted Archive is a companion technology which runs on top of the filtering: since all inbound (and outbound) email is routed through the EHS datacentre, it's a good place to keep a long-term archive of it. And if you add journaling into the mix (where every message internal to your Exchange world is also copied up to the EHS datacentre), then you could tick the box of having kept a copy of all your mail, without really having to do much. Once you've got the filtering up & running anyway, enabling archiving is a phone call away and all you need to know at your end is how to enable journaling.

NET: Using hosted filtering reduces the risk of inbound malicious email infecting your systems, and of you spreading infected email to other external parties. Hosting your archive in the same place makes a lot of sense, and is a snap to set up.

Exchange 2007 does add a little to this mix though, in the shape of per-user journaling. In this instance, you could decide you don't need to archive every email from every user, but only certain roles or levels of employee (eg HR and legal departments, plus board members & executives).

Now, using Hosted Archive does go against what I said earlier about keeping everything - except that in this instance, you don't need to worry about how to do the keeping... that's someone else's problem...

Further information on using Exchange in a compliance regime can be seen in a series of video demos, whitepapers and case studies at the Compliance with Exchange 2007 page on Microsoft.com.

Sometimes, you know you didn't pay enough

Ewan — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:20:07 GMT

... (and sometimes you probably suspect you paid too much)

A common trait in western cultures is the eye for a good deal - you know, getting two-for-the-price-of-one, or thinking that it's worth buying something because it's on sale and you'll save 25%, rather than because you really need it or wanted it beforehand.

I saw a quotation the other day which set me thinking... John Ruskin, a leading 19th-century English artist, all-round intellectual and writer on culture & politics, said:

"There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that person's lawful prey.
It is unwise to pay too much, but it is also unwise to pay too little.
When you pay too much, you lose a little money, that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything because the thing you bought is incapable of doing the thing you bought it to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot... It can't be done.

If you deal with the lowest bidder it is well to add something for the risk you run.

And if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better." -- John Ruskin (1819-1900)

This is something that maybe executives at Mattel toys are mulling over right now, but it's probably a valuable lesson to any consumers about the risk of going for the absolute cheapest in every sense, regardless of price point.

There's probably an economic principle to explain all this, but I've no idea what it's called

As it happens, I've been getting back into cycling recently and that's required me to spend a great deal of time and money poring over bikes & accessories, whilst learning about all the differences between manufacturers, model ranges etc.

In short, they're all much of a muchness. Just like computers, consumer electronics, or cars - is last year's model really so inferior to the all-shiny new one, that it's worth paying the premium for the up-to-date one? And how can a single manufacturer make such a huge range of related product and still retain its aspired brand values? (quality, excellence, durability, performance, blah blah blah)

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that for any individual at any point in time, there is a point where whatever it is you're looking at is just too cheap, too low-spec for your needs. Sure, I can buy a mountain bike for £50 in supermarkets or junk shops, but it'll be heavy and not as well screwed together as a more expensive one I might get from a good cycle shop.

There's a similar principle in all sorts of consumer areas - like wine, as another example. It's possible to buy wine at £3 a bottle, but it's going to be pretty ropey. £5 and up and you start getting really noticeable improvements - maybe a £6 bottle of wine could be considered 5 times better than a £3 bottle, though it's unlikely that this will carry on - at some point, you'll pay double and the more expensive product will hardly be any better to most people, but for someone, that might be the mid-point in their curve which would stretch from too cheap at one end, too expensive at the other, with a nice middle flat bit where they really want to be.

The far end of that curve would be the point where buying something too expensive will be wasted - if I only need the mountain bike to go to the shops on a Sunday morning for the newspapers, I could do without a lot of the lightweight materials or fancy suspension that a better bike would have. Ditto, if I'm an average cyclist, I won't need a top-of-the-range carbon bike since it won't make any difference to my "performance" (though try saying that to all the golfers who regularly sink their salaries into buying all the latest kit, without having any meaningful impact on their game).

Maybe it won't be "wasted", but I just won't have any way of judging compared to other products in its proximity - if I'm in the market for a MINI and yet looked at the comparative price difference of a Ferrari and an Aston Martin, I wouldn't rationally be able to say that one is better and worth the premium over the other.

So what does any of this have to do with software?

A two-fold principle I suppose: on one hand, maybe you don't need to buy the latest and greatest piece of software without knowing what it will do for you and why. Or if you do buy the new version, have you really invested any effort into making sure you're using it to its maximum potential?

Look at the new version of Microsoft Office, with the much-discussed "Ribbon" UI (actually, this link is a great training resource - it can show you the look of the Office 2003 application, you click on an icon or menu item, and it will take you to the location of the same command in the new UI).

The Ribbon scares some people when they see it, as they just think "all my users will need to be re-trained", and they maybe ask "how can I make it look like the old version?".

The fact that the Ribbon is so different gives us an excellent opportunity to think about what the users are doing in the first instance - rather than taking old practices and simply transplanting them into the new application, maybe it's time to look in more depth about what the new application can do, and see if the old ways are still appropriate?

A second point would be to be careful about buying software which is too cheap - if someone can give it away for free, or it's radically less expensive than the rest of the software in that category, are you sure it's robust enough, that it will have a good level of backup support (and not just now, but in a few years' time?) What else is the supplier going to get out of you, if they're subsidising that low-cost software?

Coming back to Ruskin: it's quite ironic that doing a quick search for that quote online reveals lots of businesses who've chosen it as a motto on their web site. Given that Ruskin was an opponent of capitalism (in fact he gave away all the money he inherited upon his father's death), I wonder how he would feel about the practice of many companies using his words as an explanation of why they aren't cheaper than their competitors?

The business case for Exchange 2007 - part II

Ewan — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:40:03 GMT

(This is a follow on to the previous post on measuring business impact, and the first post on the business case for Exchange 2007, and are my own thoughts on the case for moving to Exchange 2007). It's part of a series of posts which I'm trying to keep succinct, though they tend to be a bit longer than usual. If you find them useful, please let me know...)

GOAL: Reduce the backup burden

Now I'm going to start by putting on the misty rose-tinted specs and think back to the good old days of Exchange 4.0/5.x. When server memory was measured in megabytes and hard disk capacity in the low Gbs, there were much lower bottlenecks to performance than exist today.

Lots of people deployed Exchange servers with their own idea of how many users they would "fit" onto each box - in some cases, it would be the whole organisation; in others, it would be as many users as that physical site would have (since good practice was then to deploy a server at every major location); some would be determined by how many mailboxes that server could handle before it ran out of puff. As wide area networks got faster, more reliable and less expensive, and as server hardware got better and cheaper, the bottleneck for lots of organisations stopped being about how many users the server could handle, and more about how many users was IT comfortable in having the server handle.

On closer inspection, this "comfort" level would typically come about for 2 reasons:

Spread the active workload - If the server goes down (either planned or unplanned), I only want it to affect a percentage of the users rather than everyone. This way, I'd maybe have 2 medium-sized servers and put 250 users on each, rather than 500 users on one big server.
Time to Recovery is lower - If I had to recover the server because of a disaster, I only have so many hours (as the SLA might state) to get everything back up and running, and it will take too long to restore that much data from tape. If I split the users across multiple servers, then the likelihood of a disaster affecting more than one server may be lower, and, in the event of total site failure, the recovery of multiple servers can at least be done in parallel.

(Of course, there were other reasons, initially - maybe people didn't believe the servers would handle the load, so played safe and deployed more than they really needed... or third party software, like Blackberry Enterprise Server, might have added extra load so they'd need to split the population across more servers).

So the ultimate bottleneck is the time it takes for a single database or single server's data to be brought back online in the event of total failure. This time will be a function of how fast the backup media was (older DAT type tape backup systems might struggle to do 10Gb/hr, whereas a straight-to-disk backup might do 10 or 20 times that rate), and is often referred to in mumbo-jumbo whitepaper speak as "RTO" or Recovery Time Objective. If you've only got 6 hours before you need to have the data back online, and it takes 20Gb/hr to recover the data from your backup media, then at a maximum you could only afford to have 120Gb to be recovered and still have a hope of meeting the SLA.

There are a few things that can be done to mitigate this requirement:

Agree a more forgiving RTO.
Accept a lower RPO (Recovery Point Objective is, in essence, the stage you need to get to - eg have all the data back up and running, or possibly have service restored but with no historical data, such as with dial-tone recovery in Exchange).
Reduce the volume of data which will need to be recovered in series - by separating out into multiple databases per server, or by having multiple servers.

Set realistic expectations

Now, it might sound like a non-starter to say that the RTO should be longer, or the RPO less functional - after all, the whole point of backup & disaster recovery is to carry on running even when bad stuff happens, right?

It's important to think about why data is being backed up in the first place: it's a similar argument to using clustering for high availability. You need to really know if you're looking for availability, or recoverability. Availability means that you can keep a higher level of service, by continuing to provide service to users even when a physical server or other piece of infrastructure is no longer available, for whatever reason. Recoverability, on the other hand, is the ease and speed with which service and/or data can be brought online following a more sever failure.

I've spoken with lots of customers over the years who think they want clustering, but in reality they don't know how to operate a single server in a well-managed and controlled fashion, so adding clusters would make things less reliable, not more. I've also spoken with customers who think they need site resilience, so if they lose their entire datacenter, they can carry on running from a backup site.

Since all but the largest organisations tend to run their datacenters in the same place where their users are (whether that "datacenter" is a cupboard under the stairs or the whole basement of their head office), in the event that the entire datacenter is wiped out, it's quite likely that they'll have lots of other things to worry about - like where the users are going to sit? How is the helpdesk going to function, and communicate effectively with all those now-stranded users? What about all the other, really mission critical applications? Is email really as important as the sales order processing system, or the customer-facing call centre?

In many cases, I think it is acceptable to have a recovery point objective of, within a reasonable time, delivering a service that will enable users to find each other and to send & receive mail. I don't believe it's always worth the effort and expense that would be required to bring all the users' email online at the same time - I'd rather see mail service restored within an hour, even if it takes 5 days for the historical data to come back, compared to 8 hours for restoring any kind of service which included all the old data.

How much data to fit on each server in the first place

Microsoft's best practice advice has been to limit the size of each Exchange database to 50Gb (in Exchange 2003), to make the backup & recovery process more manageable. If you built Exchange 2003 servers with the maximum number of databases, this would set the size "limit" of each server to 1Tb of data. In Exchange 2007, this advisory "limit" has been raised to 100Gb maximum per database, unless the server is replicating the data elsewhere (using the Continuous Replication technology), in which case it's 200Gb per database. Oh, and Exchange 2007 raises the total number of databases to 50, so in theory, each server could now support 10Tb of data and still be recoverable within a reasonable time.

The total amount of data that can be accommodated on a single server is often used to make a decision about how many mailboxes to host there, and how big they should be - it's pretty common to see sizes limited to 200Mb or thereabouts, though it does vary hugely (see the post on the Exchange Team blog from a couple of years ago to get a flavour). Exchange 2007 now defaults to having a mailbox quota of 10 times that size: 2Gb, made possible through some fundamental changes to the way Exchange handles and stores data.

Much of this storage efficiency now derives from Exchange 2007 running on 64-bit (x64) servers, meaning there's potentially a lot more memory available for the server to cache disk contents in. A busy Exchange 2003 server (with, say, 4000 users), might only have enough memory to cache 250Kb of data for each user - probably not even enough for caching the index for the user's mailbox, let alone any of the data. In Exchange 2007, the standard recommendation would be to size the server so as to have 5Mb or even 10Mb of memory for every user, resulting in dramatically more efficient use of the storage subsystem. This pay-off means that a traditional performance bottleneck on Exchange of the storage subsystem's I/O throughput, is reduced considerably.

NET: Improvements in the underlying storage technology within Exchange 2007 mean that it is feasible to store a lot more data on each server, without performance suffering and without falling foul of your RTO/SLA goals.

I've posted before about Sizing Exchange 2007 environments.

What to back up and how?

When looking at backup and recovery strategies, it's important to consider exactly what is being backed up, how often, and why.

Arguably, if you have a 2nd or 3rd online (or near-online) copy of a piece of data, then it's less important to back it up in a more traditional fashion, since the primary point of recovery will be another of the online copies. The payoff for this approach is that it no longer matters as much if it takes a whole weekend to complete writing the backup to whatever medium you're using (assuming some optical or magnetic media is still in play, of course), and that slower backup is likely to be used only for long-term archival or for recovery in a true catastrophe when all replicas of the data are gone.

Many organisations have sought to reduce the volume of data on Exchange for the purposes of meeting their SLAs, or because keeping large volumes of data on Exchange was traditionally more expensive due to the requirements for high-speed (and often shared) storage. With having more memory in an Exchange server due to it being 64-bit, the hit on I/O performance can be much lower, meaning that a 2007 server could host more data with the same set of disks than an equivalent 2003 server would (working on the assumption that Exchange will have historically hit disk I/O throughput bottlenecks before running out of disk space). The simplest way to reduce the volume of data stored on Exchange (and therefore, data which needs to be backed up and recovered on Exchange), is to reduce the mailbox quota of the end users.

In the post, Exchange mailbox quotas and 'a paradox of thrift', I talked about the downside of trying too hard to reduce mailbox sizes - the temptation is for the users to stuff everything into a PST file and have that being backed up (or risk being lost!) outside of Exchange. Maybe it's better to invest in keeping more data online on Exchange, such that it's always accessible from any client (unlike some archiving systems which require client-side software, thereby rendering the data unaccessible to non-Outlook clients), not replicated to users' PCs when running in Cached Mode, and not being indexed for easy retrieval by either the Exchange Server or by the client PC.

NET: Taking data off Exchange and into either user's PST archive files, or a centralised archiving system, may reduce the utility of the information by making it less easy to find and access, and could introduce more complex data management procedures as well as potential additional costs of ownership.

Coming to a datacenter near you

An interesting piece of "sleeper" technology may help reduce the discussions of backup technique: known simply as DPM, or System Center Data Protection Manager to give it its full title. DPM has been available for a while and targeted at backing up and restoring file server data, but the second release (DPM 2007) is due soon, and adds support for Exchange (as well as Sharepoint and SQL databases). In essence, DPM is an application which runs on Windows Server, that is used to manage snap-shots of the data source(s) it's been assigned to protect. The server will happily take snaps at timely intervals and can keep them in a near-line state or archive them to offline (ie tape) storage for archival.

With very low cost but high-capacity disks (such as Serial-Attached SCSI arrays or even SATA disks deployed in fault-tolerant configurations), it could be possible to have DPM servers capable of backing up many Tbs of data as the first or second line of backup, before spooling off to tapes on an occasional basis for offsite storage. A lot of this technology has been around in some form for years (with storage vendors typically having their own proprietary mechanisms to create & manage the snapshots), but with a combination of Windows' Volume Shadowcopy Services (VSS), Exchange's support for VSS, and DPM's provision of the back-end to the whole process, the cost of entry could be significantly lower.

NET: Keeping online snapshots of important systems doesn't need to be as expensive as in the past, and can provide a better RTO and RPO than alternatives.

So, it's important to think about how you backup and restore the Exchange servers in your organisation, but by using Exchange 2007, you could give the users a lot more quota that they've had before. Using Managed Folders in Exchange, you could cajole the users into keeping this data more free of stuff they don't need to keep, and to more easily keep the stuff they do. All the while, it's now possible to make sure the data is backed up quickly and at much lower cost than would have been previously possible with such volumes of data.