data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f3b48/f3b48b4970d922fcd52b25806900ded0bba3bd67" alt="IBM IBM"
Exchange vs. Linux/390 Comparison 276
eclarkso writes: " The Consulting Times has done a quite even-handed study of the TCO for each platform in a fairly large (5000+) enterprise environment. The article is as much a commentary on the mainframe architecture as it is on Exchange vs. Linux groupware."
Let the Solution meet the problem (Score:2)
25000 Users (Score:2)
Where are you going to put all these users? I doubt many companies have this many users close enough to the server where bandwidth costs won't be prohibative. My company (PACCAR) employs well over 20,000, but we are all spread out across the nation, the majority being in the Seattle area. The powers that be put Exchange servers at or close to each office with the users mailboxes on them. This makes much more sense because the offices mail within the group far more than they do to outside offices, reducing bandwidth requirements.
Putting all your mailboxes on one big box is going to be far too slow unless they work in Ethernet-distance from the server, and even that will be problematic.
Re:25000 Users (Score:2)
Skewed Results (Score:1)
The first set of figures are skewed in support of the MS solution. The second are skewed in support of the Linux version.
I am wondering what the bases for those numbers were.
Re:Skewed Results (Score:1)
The assumption in the second figure's was that they already had the main hardware and support capability, and were just adding to it. Thought I agree that the $0 support delta was stretching Gray's Law od Programming a little to far...
Re:Skewed Results (Score:5, Interesting)
If this is a BIG IBM mainframe then it will take
more floor space than a single rack of twin processor CPUs.
I assume that VM programmers are in short enough supply that paying one $90k p.a. is reasonable. It's not far from what I get paid as a Unix SA.
And the hardware is WAY more expensive.
The second set of figures shows how much less you will be paying if you already have an IBM mainframe (for some other purpose) that you can use for a Linux partition (virtual machine, whatever you want to call it) compared to bringing in an NT server farm with exchange. You've already paid for the hardware, the floor space, the support staff. You're just pushing your hardware a little harder.
Does it make sense now?
Z.
have you seen the new mainframes? (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you need VM programmers? The port is already done, the logic for running Linux as a guest OS is there, and it's stable. Henceforth you should be coding on the Linux level, not the VM level.
Re:Skewed Results (Score:2)
Not recommended proceedure from Microsoft... Would you want Exchange running on existing servers? What if they are database servers, file servers, etc. Sorry, not a good idea. Anyway, that is what mainframes are designed to do anyway.
Comparison (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice number crunching, but in my dealings with mainframes, I've found the best advantage is that, when overloaded, they just slow down, as opposed to crashing. That wasn't considered in the article.
1Alpha7
Re:Comparison (Score:4, Interesting)
1) mainframes and real Unix servers (Sun, HP, etc.) slow down instead of crashing.
2) Linux (and NT) crashes hard.
So the question is, does the OS crash on a given platform because of the hardware, the software, or a combination of the two? What will Linux on a Mainframe do when hit with an enormous load?
Unless the kernel has been rewritten extensively to deal with the hardware, I suspect it would crash just as effectively on an S/390 as on a stack of Pentiums. I'd love to find out for sure, though.
Re:Comparison (Score:2)
Re:Comparison (Score:2)
I don't think we are talking about the good ol'BSOD. I think we are talking about application and system lockups. Not quite the same thing. This is a good question, though whether a mainframe, which has been designed to be under heavy load all the time and perform as multiple server would suffer the same fate as a Pentium. I don't know. Does this happen when you overload Slowaris (Solaris x86)?
Re:Comparison (Score:2)
I don't know what you're running, mate. I've been running Linux on Intel, BSD on ARM, Solaris on SPARC, AIX on RS6000, UnixWare on Intel, and NCR and Data General badged System V.4 on Intel and Aviion hardware for fifteen years. All of them slow up under load. If you get your swap badly wrong, and you run out of memory hard, all of them will fall over in a heap. Linux is in my experience just as robust under very heavy load as any other UN*X. The quality of the hardware matters, of course; if you buy cheap hardware, you will get reliability problems.
I've never run Windows, so I can't comment on that.
Re:Comparison (Score:2)
Playing about with running some CPU intensive processes in parellel, I managed to get the load average up to about 12 on a single CPU system. When it hit 13, the system would lock up tight. Nothing would get through--wouldn't respond to pings, wouldn't respond to interrupt codes on the console port, nothing.
Left the machine for four days (!!!) and it was still locked up. The only solution was a physical power cycle. My experience is that this is very predictable behaviour with Linux. (2.2.5 through 2.4.2)
Linux/390 manual (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, it'll long be obsolete before I ever get my hands on one of these beasts. *sigh*
Did I miss the hardware/software support costs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did we count the difference in functionality? Exchange vs. what on Linux?
The mainframe may be back -- but make no mistake it is still the domain of the priesthood. The priesthood that the server architecture was to break up. Do Linux users really want that? A handful of techs who are well paid (the business people are cheering) but no need for the thousands of SA's and small shops can just buy time on a 390.
Re:Did I miss the hardware/software support costs? (Score:2)
There are basically three sets of figures...
One for a bunch of dual pentium servers running exchange.
One for a brand new IBM ZSeries with four support staff.
One assuming that you already had the IBM and support staff and were just adding another partition with Linux running on it.
Of course if you aren't paying for any more staff or hardware you can guess which one is cheaper... Not earth shattering news.
Z.
Re:Did I miss the hardware/software support costs? (Score:1)
Re:Did I miss the hardware/software support costs? (Score:1)
Re:Did I miss the hardware/software support costs? (Score:2, Informative)
One down side to Notes comparison -- the interface stinks big time as an e-mail client. Although configurable it does not compare with Outlook out of the box. It stinks to the rate of impacting user use of e-mail -- i.e.: Notes users on average use e-mail less than 1/2 as much as Exchange users do...
Re:Did I miss the hardware/software support costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've worked at several Notes shops. People have their nose in Notes all day long. Can't say that for the Microsoft shops I've worked at (where things are spread around between different VB and Access apps, and way way too much stuff is done in e-mail for the lack of a better way.)
Exchange has most of the infrastructure, BTW. Just that Outlook is a real pile of shit from a programmatic standpoint (just as Notes is shit from a UI perspective...)
Re:Did I miss the hardware/software support costs? (Score:1, Funny)
Well, sure they send out half the email - no email viruses, right? :)
Re:Did I miss the hardware/software support costs? (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, it looked pretty bogus. Virus, User Troubles (Score:3, Insightful)
My experience as a user of Exchange is that if you let the administrator do a traditional Microsoft Office closed-system implementation, you're forcing all of your users into using an appallingly bad piece of software which leads to horrendous support problems down the road. It's not just the Virus Of The Week problem - Outlook Mail, while much much better than some of the previous MSMail products, fundamentally doesn't get it, and it keeps the user's mail in one big honking file that's increasingly fragile and bloated, and has an undocumented and unrepairable format - if it croaks beyond your client program's self-repair capabilities, you're hosed. It also Encourages Users To Mail Around Attached MSWord Documents or several other proprietary formats instead of just sending the message as real plaintext - leads to extra work for the reader (and usually sender), and bloats mail substantially, so your system has to carry a factor of 3-10 more traffic.
Exchange also encourages the users to send mail around with Internal Email Addresses - messages appear to come from "Joe User, Marketing" instead of "juser@foo.com", which looks pretty but fails badly whenever mail gets forwarded out of the system - if you send mail to Joe, Jane, and Fred@customer.com, Fred can reply to you@foo.com, but doesn't have a way to reply to "Joe User, Marketing" or whatever Jane's fictitious title is.
It's not like Sendmail doesn't have a long history of evil on its own, or like you can't build Turing Machines out of sendmail.cf files. But at least it's open, documented, and transparent, and runs on real operating systems.
Re:Yes, it looked pretty bogus. Virus, User Troubl (Score:3, Informative)
Huh?
Exchange automatically does the conversion when it goes out the SMTP layer.
Re:Yes, it looked pretty bogus. Virus, User Troubl (Score:2)
Online/offline mail storage (Score:2)
Bogus Numbers (Score:1)
Re:Bogus Numbers (Score:1)
Flamebait (Score:1)
Total bullshit, but that would be the common company response.
11 servers for exchange (Score:2, Interesting)
Where did they come up with that one?
One Compaq Proliant 6450 server with 4 x 550MHz Pentium III Xeon processors each with 2MB of L2 cache, 4GB of RAM and a 100GB external Fibre Channel disk array. Can easily handle 50k users with Exchange 2000...and if that is not enough storage for you it is easy to continue adding more disk arrays as space is needed.
That being said I wonder how the TCO would come out over 3 years between the above solution on a Win 2k platform vs a Linux platform with the same hardware and functionality. Can anyone help on this one?
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:3)
Answer: You're lying. You're talking out of your ass based on specs and dead reckonin'. They did the numbers, you did the empty speculation, and guess what? Reality wins, hands down.
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:1)
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:1)
Apparently industry does not like to bog down their exchange servers.
Seriously, imagine what would happen if even 10k users tried to simultaneously use the quad xeon you mention. The machine would probably self-destruct. Let alone function at a reasonable pace.
Granted, saying that the industry average of users/server is 350 is a rather meaningless number. What kind of systems does the average refer to?
Regardless, there is no way in hell that one quad xeon would be able to handle such an huge load.
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:2)
More than likely, the average is skewed because of smaller shops running Exchange. Just because your server/OS/groupware can host 2000 mailboxes doesn't mean you have 2000 users.
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:5, Interesting)
First, you've never obviously worked with Fibre Channel on the kind of scale that 50K users would require (ie. a big EMC box)...that many users pounding the same box will easily chew up 50% or more of your CPU power on I/O alone. Fibre is fast, but it is so fast that it can easily swamp Xeon CPU's. I know, because I did the benchmarking at my company.
Second, connection limitations in Win2K and Exchange alone mean that you are running very close to the theoretical maximum the OS supports..not a good idea.
Third, running that many users off of a single box is suicide. And if you've ever watched Exchange2K failover on a Win2K cluster, you'd know that it can take several minutes for everything to come up on the second node, if you've got a lot of users.
Finally, a 100GB array for 50K users results in a 2 megabyte mailbox..that's freaking ridiculous!
In short, you're either running a 50-user shop, or you have no idea what you are talking about.
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:2, Insightful)
If you've ever watched Exchange2K failover on a Win2K cluster, I pity you, for you've surely suffered through the same hell (especially pre-sp1) that so few of us have.
And if you have a lot of users, it certainly takes a long time. The cluster that I currently manage (until tomorrow, as I resigned) has a mere 600 users, a large percentage of which check their mail only twice a day, and the failover can take just as long as it takes to reboot the server, depending on how it's being used at the time of failover. In fact, I'd bet that the SQL cluster, used much more intensively, could failover and back again, several times, in the same amount of time.
-Tommy (who doesn't understand what use a cluster is, if you need to have a single point of failure front-end server to access it (yes I know there are ways around this, please don't flame me))
Yeah... (Score:2)
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:1)
Check out the following document keeping in mind that the box has been tuned a bit more than mine.
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/techinfo/plan
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:1)
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:1)
Slashcode is (now) smart enough not to do that to actual links. The link you want is to this document [microsoft.com] and cannot be specified correctly in plain text because it is too long and a space gets inserted between the n and g in planning.
Although a standard <A HREF="URL"> style link works perfectly and should be used when posting links via HTML :).
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:3, Interesting)
*POOF* There goes that argument!
How about some data that reflects how people actually use Exchange (through Outlook RPC). I also can't see what the client settings are -- maybe they're only pulling new mail once an hour or so.
(I've seen MS put out Exchange "scalablity" numbers using POP3 before. Easy way to beat up on Notes or Groupwise, but POP3's the game, a Unix box or that mainframe should be able to handily kick it's ass.)
This is a very stupid test (Score:2, Insightful)
For this exercise I am using the 50,000 that they want to scale the IBM to not the 5,000 originally based in the article.
1. Running any mission critical application like email/groupware is suicide on one-box. I would not trust 50,000 users to one box no matter how much the salesperson tells me its cool. That bad boy's getting at least two servers no matter what.
2. If you just want email go with another email system. That's the whole point of Exchange is that you get Calendaring/E-Mail/Web-based Mail/Task Lists/Synch with Palm, PocketPC/Public Folders in one package. I will be the first to admit that there are best of breed applications out there and Exchange isn't one of them for the individual pieces but none of them can be put together all of the features and has the worldwide support of Microsoft and its partners. IBM has the same services but
3. Whoever did these tests have never dealt with users in a corporate environment. Come take a trip to my office and I'll take you to the trading floor. These guys and gals send 10MB Excel spreadsheet models every few minutes and probably, another 10 - 15 emails at the 10K for the rest. You might say "They should be putting those into a repository". Tell that to the trader who just had a REALLY bad day and watch your head get taken off along with the rest of your torso.
4. You got 50,000 users, Chances are spending $2.5 million bucks on a license for Exchange is chump change, in fact, probably $10 million dollars is chump change. When you play in the big leagues its not about price its about support. If something happens to our Exchange servers, Microsoft has people at our door 24x7. My little group of 14 just spent $80,000 for a TEST server not even production without batting an eye do you think licensing costs are a big problem for a company with 50K.
5. Exchange polls continously. Exchange will grab mail instantaneously when it hits your mailbox. You are always connected. You are not polling hourly your polling by the second for new messages. (extremely important in a trading environment when seconds matter.)
6. Unless your Walt Disney World where 50,000 individuals work in the parks and resorts your workforce is going to be spread out likely worldwide. I can show up in London, walk-in and begin working out of Outlook exactly if I had been at my desk here in Houston. I am NOT going to have the London people coming all the way back to Houston and back again to use their email on one OS/390 the bandwidth costs would be outrageous ESPECIALLY in a real-world environment where multi-MB attachments are the norm not the exception.
So what have we learned.
The eTesting Labs test was bunk because it was not a real-world stress test.
No one is going to buy one server to serve a workforce of 5000 or 50000 for that matter. So at least double your hardware costs.
In an environment of 5000+ individuals there should and will be some sort of groupware in place. What are the added costs of buying those best of breed programs to support the same functionality of Exchange at the very least a calendaring system.
Bandwidth costs are a real issue when you deal with a worldwide work force that is in the habit of sending multi-MB files across the network. (No me the lackey is not going to break that)
When you deal in that many users, money is not becoming as great a factor more then the service-level. (Yes I said hardware earlier doubling no matter what)
In conclusion, is Exchange the best for just POP3 mail, no. It can hold its own but more then likely you can find an even cheaper alternative then what the Consulting Times found. You use Exchange because you are looking for the feature-set and Microsoft back stop. For the record, we do use all of those features, we have Ipaqs =). Also, the total cost of ownership figured by the individuals was a good attempt but did not capture what TCO really is, the total cost of ownership for all affected areas. Come back to me with a feature set that's close to Exchange including all external licencing support costs then will talk again.
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:1)
Interesting article, but the simulated user load is a pretty bad estimate of real users, IMHO. What happens under peak conditions, for instance.
Re:11 servers for exchange (Score:5, Insightful)
The custom test was designed by eTesting Labs to simulate from 33,320 to 83,300 POP/SMTP users that checked their mail every 60 minutes and sent a single 10K byte message to three recipients every 60 minutes.
Honestly, if you are using your Exchange server as a POP/SMTP server only you are wasting your money. Exchange is groupware, you do not use it as a POP/SMTP server. Save your money and just run sendmail on Linux, BSD or Solaris. Exchange is for calendering, scheduling, messaging, etc. This report is pretty much worthless.
Mainframes suck (Score:1)
for MOVEMENT of data as fast as possible. There
is very little logic and optimizations for the
mathematical calculations. There are extra modules
you can get for doing ultrafast math, the fact
remains, when you buy a mainframe you pay for
technology that was made to move data not
do any calculations. Supercomputers are
mainframes that do computation very well.
Compilers for those things resemble giant hairballs
due to setups for specific pipelines, preparations
to do some parts of code very very fast.
Thats why Beowulf(?spell?) is such great thing, because
mass market CPUs are dirt cheap, they do math
very fast, and scalability potential is enormous.
http://titan.puj.edu.co/~pdelgado/pics/rebuildi
Re:Beowulf reference (Score:2)
"Man, wouldn't it be cool if you could set up a Beowulf cluster of those OS/390 boxes!"
once again... (Score:1)
VA and redhat and a lot of others sucked in a lot of investment for development and polishing up linux to bring it to where it is. now they are gone (some are almost gone and some are hinting towards it.) IBM jumps in and saves the day. interesting. nothing against IBM of course. after all, linux isn't just for the underpriviledged or any one particular group for that matter. but a very 'interestingly' timed move on IBMs part.
and for all those nay sayers: i guess linux is ready for prime-time now that IBMs in the game?
My experience with Linux/390 (Score:5, Interesting)
Now for the article about TCO and stuff... I believe that it is correct. For small installations use cheap hardware to bring down initial costs. But don't be afraid of mainframes when you business grows - they are not that different.
Not to Mention... (Score:2)
Wonky Maths (Score:1)
But by the same token a site that uses NT for file & print servers (and therefore has an existing NT support team) should be able to use the same support resources for looking after their Exchange servers.
I'm not saying that there would be NO increase in support demands going from NT file & print to NT file & print plus Exchange, but then I don't believe that adding 5,000 whinging email users won't affect the workload of a mainframe support team either.
So to do a comparison, you should either add support costs to both NT and Mainframe, or neither. Doing it to just one is very misleading.
Re:Wonky Maths (Score:1)
Do you actually know anyone with more than say 100 users who has anything but Exchange running on their Exchange servers?
.
.
.
.
.
Yah that's what I thought. If your doing much more than file and print serving for a small shop your going to want seperate hardware for seperate functions. If for no other reason than you won't bring your mail down to reboot for your IIS patch of the week and vice versa.
What Email/Groupware software did they use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What Email/Groupware software did they use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, Bynari also runs on Linux/x86 and Solaris/sparc, for folks with a more typical environment.
Management Overhead. (Score:5, Informative)
It's kind of interesting, since management overhead is widely regarded as the main reason why people prefer Windoze systems to Linux systems. People believe that it costs less money to perform essential administration tasks in Windows than it does in Linux.
I'm not stating that the costs actually are lower, but it's not a terribly informative article if they're going to eliminate that important bit of information.
Re:Management Overhead. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's face it: The major factor is the system administrator. If he/she is competent the system TCO will go down. If he/she is incompetent the TCO will go up.
Good system administators are lazy and try to automate everything so they don't have to work. *nix systems are better at that than Windows (or OS/2, DOS for that matter)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Management Overhead. (Score:2)
And you are a either a liar, or just completely clueless. Good admins are lazy, worthless bastards who will do anything, script anything, to get back to reading
Re:Management Overhead. (Score:1)
I would think that counting for depreciation would tilt things to IBM a little more. Those mainframe's value usually stays higher than PC's, where within a year their value has dropped 25-50%
Re:Management Overhead. (Score:2)
He also has a listing of 4 people supporting each platform. Even for 24x7 operation, you would not need 4 people to manage one Linux mainframe. This also neglects the ease of remote administration enjoyed by Unix.
Simple would be the word I would use to describe this "study"...
~Hammy
Re:Management Overhead. (Score:1)
Looks like he was assuming there would be someone available on site 24X7. In which case you actually need more than 4 people. Do the math:
(168 hours a week) / (40 hour work week) = (4.2 people need per week). It actually work out to even more people needed once you start adding up cover for vacation (4 weeks per year = 640 hours), Stat holidays (varies say 10 days per year = 80 hours), plus sick days, family days, funeral days, moving days, professional development days, out of town meetings etc. etc.
Even something as mundane as a 24 hr rent a cop job requires at least 4 full time salaries and 1 part timer.
Re:Management Overhead. (Score:2)
A watchdog card and a pager... I just eliminated 2 salaries.
~Hammy
Re:Management Overhead. (Score:2)
Re:remote win2k admin? (Score:2)
Re:Management Overhead. (Score:2)
- IBM Instructor, "Introduction to System/360," Circa 2Q 1966
depreciated managers (Score:2)
> as the main reason why people prefer Windoze systems to Linux systems.
no, no, no. That's "depreciated managers' heads" that leadsto such solutions.
hawk
You have to admit (Score:1)
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!
What if the IBM hardware was free? (Score:2, Interesting)
+tl
Re:What if the IBM hardware was free? (Score:1)
That's all at the tail-end of the article.
Cost per user seems high, what about Opensource... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it can be done cheaper, we have designed email/groupware for millions of subscribers cheaper than that, all are webbased with oracle/ldap on sun equipment, with network load balancers.
I like how Exchange looks like a cheap solution, untill you grow past your user base, then costs sky rocket.
No Support required for IFL? (Score:3, Insightful)
that it rocks. The thing that I didn't read in the article is WHY it does not need to support.
This does not vindicate the mainframe (Score:2)
If you remove the cost of licensing NT and Exchange, the Mainframe solution is more expensive in all circumstances, except with more than 50,000 users.
This article only demonstrates that Exchange is overpriced, not that mainframes make good mail servers.
Re:This does not vindicate the mainframe (Score:1)
Re:This does not vindicate the mainframe (Score:2)
Why a mainframe and not intel boxes??? (Score:5, Insightful)
3 6xXeon systems 2 to 1 failover $80k
1 Linux retail box $75
2 Admins @ 75k/year $150k
-----
$230.075
Well, dont know but somehow this whole linux on mainframe seems like overkill for me - especially since the mainframe CPU's arent all that impressive and the linux vm's dont profit all that much of the datatransfer rates a mainframe offers...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why a mainframe and not intel boxes??? (Score:2)
I'll tell you what - I make A LOT less then $75k/year and I don't suck.
*Sigh* I can't believe I responded to an AC. Maybe I do suck.
What about end-user training (Score:1)
One thing I noticed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why compare it on big iron? Why not compare it solely on the same hardware?
I can support 50,000 users doing all kinds of neat things on the same hardware, running linux, for a LOT less money.
Notice the Exchange licensing costs? a quarter million bucks?
Keep in mind; most companies do NOT use exchange for what it is good at.. they use it for pure email, though they may purchase it thinking they will use all the groupware features.
Re:One thing I noticed... (Score:4, Insightful)
At a minimum every company I have ever encountered with Exchange, Lotus Notes etc has used it for email and scheduling. Most critical is the scheduling of conference rooms and other resources.
I agree that there are a great many features that are not used routinely, but in the companies where they are used they are absolutely critical.
Many companies have built solutions for ordering office supplies, computers, move/add/change requests, etc. using automated message forms. I've seen these in both Exchange and Notes.
I think you would have a hard time walking into any major corporation and telling them. "Look, we know you use groupware. But we are a lot smarter than you and we know that all you really need is just simple email."
Re:One thing I noticed... (Score:2)
I've seen a lot of medium-sized operations switch to exchange because of all the 'features'... and basically never use them. THey end up with primarily, a mail server.
I saw one company switch to it just so they could use shared email accounts, for doing tech support.
I never said I would walk into a 'major corporation' and tell them they only need email. Many corporations have big infrastructure that you coldn't change with an army.
Re:Domino for AS/400 works (Score:2)
Hotmail is groupware now!?!?
Oh wait...no it isn't. It's simply web based email. Do you think that may be one of the reasons it doesn't run on Exchange?
Not negating the fact that Outlook Web Access reeks...but, then, so does Lotus' i-Notes.
Naturally... (Score:1)
what a stupid article (Score:2)
Also, there was no mention of what "groupware" they were using under Linux. The only piece of information in this article is that Exchange is insanely expensive and requires a lot of hardware, but we kinda knew this already.
Re:A $105,250 Linux License? For what?!?! (Score:2)
Math Nazi (Score:1)
4 * 55000 * 1.5 = 330000
Re:Math Nazi (Score:1)
The Exchange weinie speaks! (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of exchange shops do stick to a 300-350 user limit per box for Exchange 5.5, but that is with the following conditions:
No real company has 10 meg mailbox limits
Until the current generation of tape backup (ultrium, superdlt) came out, having a mail database (priv.edb , the "priv in exchange speak) muuh bigger than 20 gig really alarmed people due to SLA's for restoration of service in a server corruption/failure scenario.
So, if you assume for their scenario that they were running E5.5, I would have put at least 1000 mailboxes per server, probably 1500, allowing me to max out at 15 gig priv. This would cut down the hardware costs considerably.
With exchange 2000, clustering is a lot more viable, and e2k also allows a lot more (up to 16, instead of 1) private stores (databases of email) per server. MS has had some issues with MAPI clients and clusters , so I am really hesitant to say how many more users I would put per box.
Overall though, I think its clear that if you have tons of users, linux on big iron can make a ton of sense. Comparing qmail/sendmail to exchange is somewhat unrealist on a features standpoint, but for the major league web email providers, big iron must be worth looking into.
I really think the 10 meg per user mail limit somewhat discredits the whole analysis though. Sounds way more like webmail than corporate mail
ostiguy
Re:The Exchange weinie speaks! (Score:2)
Re:The Exchange weinie speaks! (Score:2)
ostiguy
Re:The Exchange weinie speaks! (Score:2)
I can't comment on Exchange 2000, since we have no plans to update anytime soon.
Exchange Functionality.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing the entire point of deploying a messaging system in a corporate environment. This is what messes Linux up. It's nice that you can run SendMail, popD and whatever on the big hardware.. but.. for my corporate end users, this isn't adequate.
Here are my criteria, sorted in no particular order, for a system that I would be happy to deploy to my 700+ users:
1) Reliable: No loss of data (no PC storage, backups are centralized). [admittedly, tough to maintain with exchange, in the field]
2) Useability: (l)Users can find their info quickly and easily. (search via header, sender, date, text in body, text in attachments, etc..)
3) Manageable costs associated with the above two criteria. I'm not claiming $0 cost -- but predictable and manageable costs.
That's it. Exchange rules at meeting those criteria. I don't want to backup 700+ PC's -- I don't run an ISP!
Which is quite common, for the market that Linux is "trying" to target -- except that most implementers assume there is a *nice* SLA in place.. the small/medium size market is not ready for the lack of end-user features that are present in the *VAST* majority of the distributions.
gimmie M$ Small Business Server vs. a Linux/POP3/IMAP solution and I only have to wait until the first end-user "OOPSIE" as a sysadmin, before I toss linux out the window..
Cheers,
Scoots.
In light of recent events.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if I did have one massive site, I would like some ability to continue operations if one building was out of action for any reason. In that light, even as a Linux junkie I wouldn't support the idea of buying a single big IBM system. The words 'putting all my eggs into one basket' seem to come to mind.
Gimme a break! (Score:2)
The more poop like this is spread, the more credit Linux is loosing. Exchange is a resource hog, but that has a reason: it stores the data on the server, to make sharing data easier. (that's the point of groupware in case you wonder what the difference between just email of 1KB a pop and groupware with lots of documents is).
reality check (Score:2)
1) Nobody has a 10MB mailbox. We have corp dictat to keep them under 250MB and most people complain about that. So you have to use some realistic number. You also have to consider that email/groupware is the poor man's ftp in the corp so you have to be able to bulk move all kinds of very large attachments.
2) The support costs for Linux 390 or essentially the same as for any other kind of Linux because IT IS Linux. 99% of a sysadmins job would never touch VM even if running as a guest of VM.
3) Do you really want to manage all the security problems, viruses and macro hacks for 50,000 Exchange users?
Re:Too bad (Score:2, Informative)
From HP's web site [openmail.com]:
HP will support our customers using versions 6.0 and 7.0 of the product for the next five years until March 31st 2006. The new 7.0 release further strengthens OpenMail's ability to support thousands of users per server and provide rich functionality when connected to the Outlook client. Support for OpenMail 5.10 continues until 31st October 2001.
Re:What a stupid article. (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, I was expecting to see a Quake benchmark.
Re:Did management come up with these numbers? (Score:3, Insightful)
How good an Exchange admin are you if you don't know about Single Instance Store in Exchange? Priv.edb doesn't hold a separate copy of that attachment for every user. It's kept in the database and is only referred to once for everyone in the distribution list.
So to keep it simple for you:
If your CEO (who you think is an idiot but somehow makes more money than you) sends his PowerPoint attachment to 20 people internally (and assuming those 20 users keep their mailboxes on the same Exchange server), there will only be one copy of that PowerPoint app in priv.edb.
Got it?
Re:And Backup is done how? (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks to me like you could put *anything* that could be done with Linux on one of these things. Replace 50+ server with one of these and you start breaking even on TCO. If you have more than 50 servers you would save on space and operating costs. Plus, you would have need for less personel taking care of your servers. Looks like a decent idea to me if you are a large corp. But then, that's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Re: (Score:2)