Symantec Enterprise Vault vs. Microsoft Exchange Server Archiving
Earlier on today Symantec tweeted an article comparing archiving features offered by both Symantec Enterprise Vault and Microsoft Exchange Server. They might call it a
Great article
but I’m not sure I agree. From my point of view the article reveals nothing that isn’t known for months. Exchange 2010 is RTM for half a year already. What I really would like to see (and so are others) is a detailed comparison between both Enterprise Vault and Exchange Server. So far I’ve not been able to find such a comparison anywhere on the public internet, so let me have a shot at it myself:
| Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 | Symantec Enterprise Vault 9 | |
| Archiving Targets |
|
|
| Prerequisites |
|
|
| Integration |
|
|
| Offline Archive Support | None | Offline Vault |
| Storage |
|
|
| Legal Position |
|
|
| Migration | Easy (?)
|
Hard (?)
|
| Cost |
|
|
| Conclusion | Low end alternative for pst-files for the first time ever | If you want to archive…
|
Note: This info is preliminary. Both products are in need for E2K10 SP1 before they can be taken seriously. Enterprise Vault 9 is still in beta at the moment and will only support E2010 from SP1 onwards. Exchange Server 2010 will allow separating primary and secondary mailboxes starting with SP1. This highly anticipated Service Pack will probably be released somewhere around Q3 of this year.
Apart from that I’m convinced we’re actually seeing the trusted Microsoft strategy of entering the market with a basic feature set. They feel the temperature and then gain market share gradually. Release after release.
Whether you agree or not, or just want to contribute to the discussion; feel free to comment.
Koen Vermoesen
Stijn Vermoesen
View Koen Vermoesen's profile
Hi Koen, and thanks for contributing to the discussion. We called it a “great article” for some obvious reasons but also because in general we want to encourage our users, partners, and other interested parties to join the conversation. We’re firmly of the belief that archiving has become about more than just email; it’s becoming the corporate memory for a lot of organizations and that means more choice. More sources, more storage targets, better management at the enterprise and large enterprise end of the spectrum, and more management of the information stored in the archives over time. And we’re encouraged by validation of the archiving part of our markets. You’ve put a great starting matrix together. :)
Thanks!
——————————————————
Nick Wade
Group Product Manager, Enterprise Vault
Symantec Corporation
——————————————————
http://www.EnterpriseVault.com
http://twitter.com/EnterpriseVault
——————————————————
Nick, Thx for the comment & the tweet.
Love this matrix Koen. More and more folks are asking that question, especially when they are looking to upgrade to Ex2010. As an engineer, you can spout off factoids about EV all day, but until managers see it in a concise manner like what you put together, they just dont get it! (Yes, I am generalizing, all managers are not the same, and some are quite technologically savvy to understand the benefits of EV)
I would really love a breakdown of what storage savings within Ex2010 there is when you archive vs EV. Seems to me its just adding an additional Store, but its still on the same expensive disks. But, to be honest, I havent delved that deeply into all the possible configurations of EX2010 yet.
Hi Ethen,
Thanks for your comment.
There has been quite some buzz around the possibility of deploying Exchange Server 2010 on “cheap” storage. Think DAS/SATA/JBOD/… Most customers still prefer to use the SAN infra they’ve invested in for years. One can imagine some scenarios with tiered storage however.
If your leaving your data in Exchange Databases you could also leave them in the primary mailbox of course. It feels like MS is contradicting itself a bit with offering archiving features on the one hand and releasing a Large Mailbox Vision White Paper on the other hand.
I’ve not had the change to make the calculation myself, but I guess you shouldn’t only look at storage cost. What about additional hardware, software licenses, training etc…
Regards,
Koen
Good article – worth noting as well that it’s not just support for Exchange 2010 which is taking a long time to come …
Outlook 2010 support isn’t coming until late this year (in the 9.0.1 release) – most likley a good 7+ months after the RTM of Office 2010 (and am awfull lot longer after product Office Betas have been around)
This is a huge PITA for people who have an EV solution and want to do a depoyment of Outlook 2010. Using a 3rd party solution like this leaves you “at the mercy” of the vendor’s release cycle (which in the case of Exchange 2010 and Outlook 2010 seems to be very lengthy)
- AL
good discussion……
You’re right about Microsoft’s strategy. You’ll never catch them running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off; their intent is always a slow, gradual increase in market share and they’ve certainly been able to achieve this with the subsequent releases of Exchange 2010.
great article :)
there is support for outlook 2010 as well, i.e. you will have to use the http add-ins instead of the outlook add-ins.
Hi,
we just did an eval for EV and Exchange 2010 archving with the following requirements:
10000 users –
a) 1 GB mailbox data (average) in Ex 2003
b) 2 GB (average) in PST files.
c) 2 Gb Growth in 2 years (1 GB mailbox growth is assumed to per user per year)
–> 5GB per user total mail data
They planned to go to Exchange 2010 with a 2 GB mailbox and a personal archive for the rest, or use Enterprise Vault wit a 1 GB mailbox as they can use EV Offline Cache for their mobile users.
The design is using 2 DAGs and another time-lag DAG for providing additional DR options (only for mailboxes, not PAs).
Here is the storage summary we did:
With Exchange 2010 Personal Archives (PAs)
Exchange 2GB/user * 10.000 users * 3 DAGs –> 60 TB Exchange Primary Storage (SAS)
Exchange Personal Archive 3GB/user * 2 DAGs –> 60 TB Exchange Secondary Storage (S-ATA)
Exchange Indexing (15%) for Mailboxes –> 9 TB Index Storage (SAS)
—> All in all we need 130 TBs of Storage for the Exchange environment
Note that there is no SIS in Exchange 2010, so the Mailbox data from 2003 will likely expand and the 1GB growth they assumed from Exchange 2003 might be even larger.
Now with EV:
Exchange 1 GB/user * 10.000 users * 3 DAGs —> 30 TB Exchange (SAS)
Exchange Indexing (15%) for Mailboxes –> 4,5 TB Index Storage (SAS)
2 GB PST in Enterprise Vault * 10000 users * 60% Compression (SIS & Compression) –> 8TB
2 GB Growth for future * 10.000 users * 40% compression (SIS & ZIP Compression) –> 12 TB
15% EV Indexing (on 20TB above) –> 3TB
–> So with EV you need 35 TB for Exchange and 23 TB for EV.
The saving with EV was 70 TB of storage and that paid multiple times the Symantec licenses.
Over the cause of 4-5 years will become even bigger.
Hope this gives another perspective on the cost side….
Daniel Maiworm
GlassHouse Technologies
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your HQ post! I will certainly get back to it if I ever need to do that kind of math.