I assume WL is me... I don't remember that far back. I don't have a clue what I said.
And you're right. I don't know enough about the product. I have no idea what it does. Your documentation doesn't tell me. It does tell me it makes things all better. I didn't read the customer testimonials because it asked me to register to do so (bugmenot.com actually had a lucid8.com listing, but it didn't work). I suspect they don't tell me either. Even when I tried GoExchange (used my real name for the trial and everything) I could not return any value at all. No performance gains. No improvement. Negative ROI, really. This was back a year or more and was tested on Exchange 2003 with two 4GB stores that were about a year old. Fear mongering as a marketing strategy only deserves snide comments. My anti-product comment stands... I bet. And I have yet to see any technical documentation on how GoExchange really helps. I have run it. I have gone through the output reports (a lot of emphasis on recovering white space made the rest of it less valuable) from GoExchange. Your documentation suggests people are seeing whitespace of 17% and even up to 35% in their databases. While they may see that the first time, some event, like layoffs, lowering of mailbox quota or something, is going to be needed to trigger that much deletion. That may not be what it is trying to say, but there is excessive focus on that. There is little or no value in eliminating a few MB of whitespace forcing the database to claim more from the OS again. It almost doesn't even matter if GoExchange helps. I just don't have customers that can afford the scheduled downtime. Uptime has a value to some an order of magnitude greater than the cost of running GoExchange. What is the most common Exchange corruption error? -1018 errors? If I set the store to diagnostic level of Expert (formerly 'Field Engineering'), I will see a lot to scare me into considering GoExchange. But then I look a little closer. Exchange 2003 sp1 made improvements on managing the potential for -1018 errors. Some -1018 errors are generated not because the database is corrupt, but because the storage system is not returning page requests correctly. The database may be fine. What value does GoExchange return then? Mostly, -1018 errors are hardware related. Issues that can and would arise between the periods where I tell my users that they can't access their email for a few hours every 6-8 weeks while I run GoExchange. -1019 errors are similar. I can get those when I flip a few bits on the database with a Hex editor. Again it is often hardware related. How about -1022 errors? I haven't seen one since before 2000. I don't even know what I would do initially anymore. GoExchange is supposedly a preventitive maintenance operation. But it comes at a cost - software, administration, and downtime. Downtime as a result of Exchange database corruption is really not that common; however, nobody wants it to happen to them. And sometimes it does. I mean, it is not like going to the dentist. My teeth need to last me a lifetime. My Exchange database will be probably be gone in 3-4 years - mailboxes moved to a new version with new hardware. A good disaster recovery plan is not that difficult and may not ever be needed. And even if it was, the downtime may equate to one or two runs of GoExchange. An online version of GoExchange may hold some value. I mean, it is not like the hurricane Katrina disaster, where the simple solution is to move away from the area where your house is situated below sea level protected by a water levy that is going to inevitably fail. If the condition (exchange) is going to fail so easily, obviously, and fatally, then move to a different place (product). You say your customers say it all... well, if they said anything other than 'GoExchange worked for us!' I might appreciate it more. These are the same customers for whom you developed the product, right? You know, the people who "were using the utilities incorrectly". Dane, articles like this http://www.informationweek.com/software/messaging/166403975 read as marketing crap. The company seemed shocked that their database size didn't shrink automatically when data was extracted. The more I read you and Troy W and others, the more I appreciate Don's post... GoExchange may well be for the 'lazy administrator'. I do preventitive maintenance. It's called an online backup (oops, it misses the -1019 errors) and online maintenance. I have insurance. It's call test restores and backup validation and if necessary, though very rarely, eseutil and isinteg. Now in addition, with Exchange 2007 sp1, I have SCR/LCR/CCR. How much insurance do I need beyond that? How well do I sleep at night? How many vacations can I take with money I could have spent on GoExchange? It's a matter of risk. I have no doubt your engineers know more about .edb files than I do. Even if GoExchange does a bang up job every few weeks, do I need it? Do I need to hunt deer with a Howitzer cannon? (http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm) How do I compare the cost of scheduled downtime with the reduced possibility of non-scheduled downtime? Of course, GoExchange can not eliminate the possibility of unscheduled downtime. Even if GoExchange does as all the marketing material indicates, is it worth it? That is what people have to determine for themselves. The only competing solution is Microsoft, which could, if it wanted to, implement the very same processes within the product. Note that it doesn't. As long as 1) Exchange is on JET/ESE and 2) Microsoft does not implement more checks and balances into its maintenance routines for Exchange databases, then GoExchange has a pulse. What about those analyst firms? I imagine sometimes they are accurate. Gartner messed up back in 2001 with their coverage of Exchange 2000. I pretty much stopped reading them. There are people outside of Ferris, Gartner etc that I trust a lot more for Exchange coverage. You guys worked with Gartner, right? Held their hands? Taught them what they needed to know for their report? I don't really value software marketing so your version anecdote is wasted on me. I don't hear Microsoft bragging about Vista much anymore. I do hear them starting Windows 7 murmuring. I guess for your verison list there, will Windows 7 say it is even better than Vista or even better than XP? About 25 out of 25 Microsoft Exchange MVPs surveyed say that GoExchange is not necessary. Even if I were at liberty to list them, you would probably call them idiots or something else degrading. (was that an example of your professionalism, Dane?) Now Digiscope is a cool product. It is probably the second best non-Microsoft offline exchange database access tool out there. Love it. Kudos for that! Dane I am very glad you are here and took the time. William At an infinite number of points on its surface, the world is flat. On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Dane Cue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > WL, I read your post and; > > 1. Your snide comments really hold no value. > > Q: I have to ask myself and so should others why anyone would make such a > silly suggestion for an Anti-Product that they in fact know nothing about? > > A: If you dont hae an answer, make an off color comment, wave your arms and > jump up and down. Ooh look at me everyone, the world is flat i tell you > flat.... > > > 2. Regarding your statement about Microsofts, you seem to be arguing against > yourself, i.e. no one from MS would ever say this and if they did its a rogue > party with an MS email? So even if I were at liberty to qoute MS sources you > would more then likely call the person an idiot or something else degrading. > > Also you fail to miss the major point of our rather detailed answer: Here is > the orginal text: > > A final note. We have heard from Microsoft themselves which have stated on > various occasions (to us and other customers) > • "With 2K7 you don't need GOexchange anymore like you did with 2K3" > • Rather humorously we also previously heard "With 2K3 you don't need > GOexchange anymore like you did with 2K" > in other words with every generation of Exchange it's admitted we provided a > valuable service for the older product but we were no longer "Needed" for the > newest product, that is until the next generation is released that solves all > the problems that didn't exist. > > END.. > > Now MS is a great company that makes some incredible products, but anyone > that has been in the industry for any length of time knows the scopre here > and its not just about Exchange i.e. > > Buy Version 1.x its awesome and has no issues > > Buy Version 2.x its awesome and solves issues that 1.x had and is solid as a > rock, requires no xxx or yyy like 1.x > > Buy version 3.x its awesome, solves issues with 2.x and is solid as a rock, > requires no xxx or yyy or zzz like 2.x > > So the latest version is always great and solves real problems that the old > version had and therefore you no longer need to do whatever you used to do, > until the new version comes out and then the process is repeated. > > In relation to GOexchange, MS and others made these statements when Exchange > 2000 came out, then 2003 and now 2007 and each and every time its been false, > i.e. GOexchange continues to add value to clients around the world. Bottom > line here is that until MS move's away from JET, GOexchange will continue to > provide benefit to all that utilize it. > > I hope this helps and I am happy to converse with you openly on this forum as > long as you can behave like a professional and deliver thoughtful and > informed responses. > > DC > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
