Not sure about Sharepoint support on all of them...but I would start with Symantec and Commvault. Zantaz will look fine on paper, but I had too many support problems with them in recent years to suggest their product.
Above all, do a very extensive test/POC with each. In an isolated environment with as much real test data as you can. Nearly all of the products do the same thing at a high level, but I've always found some specific differences between them that matter to most organizations. You won't find those without a full POC. --James On 5/6/09, Brian Dwyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Exchange 2003 (moving to 2007 soon) 14,000 users, 3 mailbox servers, 15 > DB's, approx 2 TB data, growing at rate of 100 GB month. 75% of users > OWA, 25% Outlook 2003 in cached mode. No Quotas,or retention periods > enforced, no archiving. > > Sounds like a horror story but very few performance issues, very few > problems. > > Really want to implement archiving, but must be a solution that is OWA > friendly, and one which does not require any client add ins to OLK as > majority of the 17,000 + clients are members of one of the 144 federated > (untruseted) domains in our organisation. > > In early stages of desktop H/W upgrade - Vista/Office 2007. > > Management have specified that a single "enterprise" archiving solution > - i.e., filestore, email, sharepoint etc, is to be used. > > Would really appreciate suggestions. > > Brian > > (Catholic Education Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) > > ________________________________ > > From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2009 10:27 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Exchange archiving > > > Mailbox limits are 300MB warning, 320MB no send, 350MB no send/receive. > Am I being to strict??? > I also have deleted item retention set for 14 days. > I figured these are pretty typical limits? > > > ________________________________ > > From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:30 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Exchange archiving > > > > Yes I do > > > > __________________________________________________ > Stefan Jafs > > > > From: Bob Fronk [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: May-05-09 9:54 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Exchange archiving > > > > I have about 130 users and a 250GB store.... Wow.. you must have some > strict limits set. > > > > Bob > > > > From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:43 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Exchange archiving > > > > That's good to hear. > > I have about 160 users and currently have a 24GB store. > > What kind of hardware is SEA running on? processor, storage? > > How long are you archiving for? > > thx > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:20 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Exchange archiving > > I have recently installed the SEA solution. I'm impressed, everything > works, we had a bit of a challenge with RPC / HTTP, we had to get > another certificate etc. but it's all good now and I had any help I > needed from Sunbelt. The setup was included in the cost and Sunbelt came > in remotely and had it all configured in about 1,5 hours. > > > > I have about 190 users so far I have archived 138 users, my store has > gone from 105 Gb to less than 50Gb (or should have if I defragged). > > It setup to auto archive automatically after 30 days. My external > Archived data is about 40 Gigs. > > > > It's very seamless to the users, now I'm just trying to get the users to > move all their archives.pst back to the inbox. > > > > Very happy SEA user. > > > > ___________________________________ > > Stefan Jafs > > > > From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:28 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Exchange archiving > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > We have just started discussing archiving, and while compliancy is a > goal, I suppose it would be nice to reduce the size of the store. > > I would think that once you have enabled any archiving solution, you > will be reducing your store? > > Won't messages that people are keeping now be archived (moved out of the > store) thus reducing the size, and allowing for lower mailbox limits? > > > > Thx > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Eric Hanna [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:15 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Exchange archiving > > In my experience, the load on the Exchange server tends to depend on how > many mailboxes are being journaled, the amount of journaling mailboxes, > and how much traffic is being ran through the Exchange server. Based on > these factors, I would say you will probably see about a 5-15% increase > in utilization (rough estimate but is what I generally see). As for how > granular journaling is: Exchange 2003 is set on the store level while > Exchange 2007 can be set at the mailbox level. > > > > Lastly, my 2pennies worth for the archiving: There are lots of solutions > out there for archiving from open source to products like Symantec > Vault. Enabling journaling for Exchange archiving is a popular way to go > as it ensures capture of inbound and outbound traffic instead of > interacting with individual mailboxes. While this gets your compliancy > side, it doesn't do anything for your store sizes. Products like SEA > (yes, a shameless plug) are able to archive your journaling mailbox (and > only keep a copy for the archives) and also archive mailboxes > individually. This will get your compliancy side as well as getting your > information store reduced. > > > > While all solutions serve their function, it really depends on what you > want to accomplish while archiving. Are you looking for archiving as a > compliancy solution and/or do you want to get your information store > sizes down? Is it more beneficial for you and your company to use a > hosting company or would you like to keep it in-house? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Eric Hanna > > Lead Enterprise Technical Services Specialist > > Sunbelt Software > > ________________________________ > > From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:43 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Exchange archiving > > > > I am beginning to look into our options for archiving Exchange 2003. > It seems like most solutions involve enabling journaling on the exchange > server and having the server grab a copy of every email that is sent and > received. > > Then (with a hosted solution for example), the copies of emails get > securely sent over the internet to the hosting company's servers where > we can log in and view/retrieve them for an archive period. Depending > on the length of archiving and the amount of data, cost seems to be > around $300 - $600 month. > > I assume in-house solutions (where you have the journaling service send > copies of everything to your own in-house server) is also an option? > > In either case, how do I know my server can handle enabling journaling? > There has to be some major performance impact? Also I assume you can > enable journaling on a single (or couple) of test mailboxes? > > Is this what others are doing? > > Thanks > > > > > > ... > > > > > > This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely > for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you > should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or > opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not > represent those of the Amico Corpoartion company. Warning: Although > precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this > email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage > that arise from the use of this email or attachments. > > > > > > > > This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely > for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you > should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or > opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not > represent those of the Amico Corpoartion company. Warning: Although > precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this > email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage > that arise from the use of this email or attachments. > > > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the BCEC > Security Gateway, and is believed to be clean. Brisbane Catholic Education > however gives no warranties that this e-mail is free from computer viruses > or other defects. Except for responsibilities implied by law that cannot be > excluded, Brisbane Catholic Education, its employees and agents will not be > responsible for any loss, damage or consequence arising from this e-mail. > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ -- Sent from my mobile device ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
