WHITE PAPER N Imprtant Issues t Cnsider Befre Migrating t a New Versin f Exchange An Osterman Research White Paper Published August 2011 SPONSORED BY SPON spnsred by spnsred by Osterman Research, Inc. P.O. Bx 1058 Black Diamnd, Washingtn 98010-1058 USA Tel: +1 253 630 5839 Fax: +1 253 458 0934 inf@stermanresearch.cm www.stermanresearch.cm twitter.cm/msterman
Executive Summary Migrating frm ne email platfrm t anther can be a difficult, time-cnsuming and expensive prpsitin, even when migrating frm ne versin f a vendr s slutin t anther. Fr example, upgrading frm an lder versin f Micrsft Exchange the mst widely used messaging system in crprate Nrth America t a mre recent versin is nt really an upgrade per se. Because this upgrade cannt be perfrmed in place, new servers must be set up with the new versin f Exchange and data migrated t them. Fr all intents and purpses then, mving frm ne versin f Exchange t anther is akin t a rip-and-replace mdel that is expensive and time-cnsuming fr IT t carry ut. That said, the benefits f migrating t the newest versin f Exchange carries with it several imprtant benefits, nt least f which is the ability t reduce verall strage csts thrugh the use f less expensive disk strage, better verall perfrmance, imprved message delivery, mre reliable disaster recvery and the ability t migrate t unified cmmunicatins. Mrever, when planning fr the migratin t n-premise Exchange 2010, decisin makers shuld cnsider where else they culd make imprvements t their infrastructure, their wrk prcesses and verall crprate resiliency by applying clud-based technlgies where it makes sense t d s. In this white paper we attempt t make the case fr cnsidering the many advantages f implementing clud-based file transfer during the Exchange 2010 migratin prcess. KEY TAKEAWAYS When planning a migratin t Exchange 2010, decisin makers shuld als plan ther infrastructure and prcess changes t imprve email prcesses t the greatest extent pssible. While many rganizatins anticipate lwer strage csts in Exchange 2010, the strage cst savings will be at least partially ffset by eliminatin f the single-instance strage (SIS) that was used in earlier versins f Exchange. This makes strage reductin an even mre imprtant cnsideratin than it has been with previus versins f Exchange. Integratin f clud-based, managed file-sharing/attachment management (MST/AM) capabilities in an Exchange 2010 envirnment can dramatically reduce internal strage requirements by migrating mst cntent t an alternative, nn-email cmmunicatins transmissin and strage channel. Clud-based MST/AM can imprve user wrk prcesses by vercming internal and external file size limitatins, eliminating mst f the cntent stred in users mailbxes, and mre easily enabling remte wrker access t email cntent. Clud-based MST/AM can als imprve IT prcesses and reduce the amunt f time that IT spends managing the Exchange infrastructure. Simply put, MST/AM directly addresses mst f the prblems that administratrs experiencing when managing email systems. 2011 Osterman Research, Inc. 1
ABOUT THIS WHITE PAPER This white paper discusses the drivers fr migrating t Exchange 2010 and why decisin makers shuld cnsider adpting clud-based MST/AM during the planning phase f the verall migratin. It als prvides a brief verview f YuSendIt, the spnsr f this white paper, and their relevant fferings. Drivers fr Exchange 2010 Migratin There are a number f drivers fr rganizatins t migrate t Exchange 2010: An aging Exchange infrastructure The Micrsft Exchange infrastructure is aging: an Osterman Research survey f mid-sized and large rganizatins cnducted in February 2011 fund that nly 22% f users are n Exchange 2010 (intrduced in Nvember 2009), while 50% are n Exchange 2007 (intrduced in Nvember 2006) and the remaining 28% are n Exchange 2003 (intrduced in September 2003) r an earlier versin. That means that ne-half f users are being served by an email infrastructure that is nearly five years ld, while sme are using nearly eight-year-ld r lder technlgy. Virtually all f these envirnments have been extensively patched and upgraded with Service Packs, but the underlying infrastructure fr mst users is relatively mature. Mrever, a large prprtin f rganizatins that are migrating t Exchange 2010 tday are migrating frm Exchange 2003. Because any majr upgrade t Exchange requires extensive changes in the server hardware, server rles, IT training, etc., this leap frgging f Exchange versins is typical. Hwever, as Exchange 2007 ages, we will expect t see a grwing number f 2007 shps migrating t the newer platfrm, as well. A desire t cnslidate Exchange versins Many rganizatins that are running Exchange are running multiple versins f the server platfrm: fr example, in the survey mentined abve, we discvered that 26% f rganizatins are running at least tw versins f Exchange. Running multiple versins increases the cst f supprt and makes end user training mre difficult. Cnsequently, many rganizatins are seeking t cnslidate n a single versin f Exchange t reduce their verall messaging-related csts. A desire t reduce strage csts Because strage represents ne f the mst significant csts f any email system (and ne f the mst prblematic areas f management fr IT staff), many rganizatins are mving tward Exchange 2010 as a means f reducing their messaging ttal cst f wnership (TCO). Fr example, the significantly reduced disk I/O in Exchange 2010 relative t earlier versins f Exchange allws the use f lwer cst disk strage systems, which can have a meaningful impact n reducing TCO. A need fr imprved perfrmance On balance, Exchange 2010 is a mre reliable messaging platfrm than its predecessrs in that it prvides greater resiliency and reliability, and it als ffers mre reliable message delivery. Fr example, Database Availability Grups (DAGs) in Exchange 2010 have 2011 Osterman Research, Inc. 2
replaced the Lcal Cntinuus Replicatin (LCR), Cluster Cntinuus Replicatin (CCR), Single Cpy Clusters (SCC) and Standby Cntinuus Replicatin (SCR) capabilities that were ffered in Exchange 2007. DAGs allw faster failvers than in previus versins f Exchange, mre efficient backups, the ability t supprt up t 16 mailbx servers in a single DAG and imprved security. Mving email t the clud Anther driver fr migrating t Exchange 2010 is t mve at least sme email users t the clud, particularly given that Exchange 2010 was designed specifically fr clud-based service delivery. While mst Exchange-enabled rganizatins will be served by n-premise infrastructure ver the next several years, Exchange 2010 makes it easier fr them t mve t the clud if and when they want t d s. A plan t migrate t unified cmmunicatins Finally, a key reasn fr rganizatins t migrate t Exchange 2010 is that it represents Micrsft s migratin path tward unified cmmunicatins. Unified cmmunicatins nrmally ffers a better experience fr users than traditinal cmmunicatins because it allws imprved emplyee prductivity, better and easier supprt fr remte wrkers, and faster decisin-making. Mrever, IT staff als benefits frm unified cmmunicatins because managing messaging and telephny as ne system is easier and less timecnsuming than when these systems are perated as separate siles, as is the case in mst rganizatins tday. Imprtant Issues t Cnsider Befre Migrating THE DEMISE OF SINGLE-INSTANCE STORAGE One f the mst imprtant changes in Exchange 2010 is the eliminatin f single-instance strage (SIS), a technique fr reducing strage requirements by eliminating redundant cpies f attachments in emails. SIS saved dramatically n strage requirements by reducing up t 80% f the cntent in Exchange databases. Instead f SIS, Exchange 2010 uses cmpressin t reduce ttal verall strage requirements, althugh cmpressin may nt ultimately save as much strage as SIS in many deplyments. Fr example, Micrsft admits that there are instances in which SIS is useful, such as when rich text frmat messages are used, when sending large attachments t multiple users, r fr cmpliance-related retentin fr indefinite perids. It is imprtant t remember that the actual cst f strage is nrmally five t eight times the cst f the strage systems themselves when adding in the cst f evaluatin, deplyment, cnfiguratin, management, pwer, etc. As a result, any strage cst savings resulting frm the use f lwer priced disk strage in Exchange 2010 will at least be partially ffset by the eliminatin f SIS. CLOUD-BASED MST/AM CAN REDUCE INTERNAL STORAGE REQUIREMENTS An email with an attachment generates a significant strage requirement, since the file that was sent is nrmally stred n a desktp, laptp r file server where it was riginally created; in the sender s Sent Items flder; and in the inbx f the recipient(s). Fr example, a single fivemegabyte file that is sent t 10 peple will cnsume 60 megabytes f strage. If this cntent is 2011 Osterman Research, Inc. 3
backed up r archived, a single five-megabyte file can actually result in nearly 200 megabytes f verall strage requirements. Because mre than 95% f the bits that pass thrugh the typical email system are attachments, the use f a managed file- sharing/attachment management (MST/AM) slutin can dramatically reduce internal strage needs. Fr example, an Osterman Research survey fund that emails with attachments larger than 10 megabytes accunt fr just ver 45% f ttal email vlume if just these very large files were sent using MST/AM, this wuld dramatically reduce verall strage requirements in an email system. Mst respndents t a majr Osterman Research survey cnducted in 2010 recgnize the need t manage attachments mre efficiently as a strategy fr reducing email strage requirements, as shwn in the fllwing figure. In fact, nly ne in six respndents tld us that better email attachment management was "nt imprtant at all" r nt t imprtant." The remainder and vast majrity put higher levels f imprtance n better email attachment management. Imprtance f Being Able t Mre Efficiently Manage Email Attachments t Save n Strage Requirements CLOUD-BASED MST/AM CAN IMPROVE USER WORK PROCESSES Anther imprtant benefit f clud-based MST/AM is that it can significantly imprve user wrk prcesses in a number f ways: 2011 Osterman Research, Inc. 4
Senders and recipients n lnger run int file-size limits when attempting t send large files. This is particularly imprtant in rganizatins that rutinely send large files, such as graphics design huses, architectural firms, engineering firms, manufacturers and thers that generate and send 10+ megabyte files rutinely. Mrever, because bandwidth-chking files are eliminated frm the email flw, verall email system perfrmance is imprved. The result is that users receive emails mre quickly and with greater reliability. Senders f large files n lnger need t burn CDs/DVDs r print files and send them via vernight curier. This speeds the delivery f cntent and reduces the cst f sending large amunts f cntent. An apprpriately cnfigured MST/AM system can permit tracking f cntent s that senders knw when recipients have received files. Als, senders can impse limits n the availability f a file by passwrd-prtecting it r autmatically deleting it after a certain number f days have elapsed since it was sent, imprving cntent security. CLOUD-BASED MST/AM CAN IMPROVE IT PROCESSES A clud-based MST/AM system can als prvide significant benefits fr any rganizatin s IT department: Because email servers stre much less cntent, server perfrmance and reliability imprve, smetimes dramatically, requiring less maintenance. Related t the smaller strage requirement n email servers is the fact that backups are much faster, as are restratins f email servers after a system crash, such as a hard disk failure r sme ther prblem. Since user mailbxes will fill up mre slwly when using a clud-based MST/AM system, IT can impse tight restrictins n mailbx size qutas. This imprves the perfrmance f email servers, speeds brick-level and full restres when required, and reduces users cmplaints abut bumping int their email qutas. The bttm line is that clud-based MST/AM directly addresses mst f the tp ten prblems in managing messaging systems, as shwn in the fllwing table. 2011 Osterman Research, Inc. 5
Prblems in Managing Messaging Systems (% Respnding a Prblem r Serius Prblem) Prblem % Grwth in messaging strage 51% Increasing backup and restre times 45% Users sending attachments that are t large 45% Excessively large mail stres n the server 43% Enfrcing an email retentin / deletin plicy 39% Increasing message size 39% Managing strage issues n email servers 38% Increasing emplyee use f attachments 38% Managing spam 35% Strage csts 35% Next Steps t Cnsider While a clud-based MST/AM system can be implemented at any time, it makes sense t cnsider it at the same time that the IT rganizatin is evaluating the steps necessary t migrate t a new email system. Because migrating t Exchange 2010 is a majr undertaking fr just abut any rganizatin, it is imprtant t cnsider hw a clud-based MST/AM slutin can best fit while ther migratin plans are being made. Osterman Research recmmends a fur-step apprach tward evaluating clud-based MST/AM in the cntext f an verall Exchange 2010 migratin effrt: Step 1: Cnsider hw clud-based MST/AM can imprve the user experience As nted abve, there are a number f ways in which end users can realize benefits frm having an alternative methd fr sending all files, but particularly large nes. An easy t use system that enables even the largest files t be sent as quickly as email, with additinal security and that requires n changes t user behavir can speed decisin making and reduce the csts assciated with sending large files via slwer and mre expensive alternatives. Step 2: Cnsider hw clud-based MST/AM can make IT s life easier Equally imprtant are the benefits that IT can derive frm the use f clud-based MST/AM systems, including lwer strage csts, faster backups and restres, and easier server maintenance. The bttm line result f making life easier fr IT is the ptential fr freeing up IT staff time t wrk n initiatives that can prduce mre value fr an rganizatin. Step 3: Perfrm a cst/benefit analysis cmparing n-premises vs. clud MST/AM In additin t clud-based MST/AM slutins, there are a variety f gd MST/AM systems that can be deplyed using n-premise infrastructure. Decisin makers shuld cnduct a detailed and thrugh cst and benefits analysis f bth appraches, making sure t cnsider all f the csts assciated with the n-premises deplyment, including additinal IT staff time requirements, pwer and ther csts that are nt required when using a cludbased slutin. As part f this analysis, it is imprtant t cnsider the pprtunity csts 2011 Osterman Research, Inc. 6
assciated with n-premises systems namely, the use f IT staff t manage an npremises system instead f wrking n ther prjects. Step 4: Fcus n lng term issues Finally, cnsider the lnger term csts and benefits and the impact that a clud-based MST/AM slutin might have by asking several imprtant questins: Will the use f a clud-based slutin that eliminates lcal strage make remte and mbile emplyees mre prductive? What will ur lng-term strage csts be with a clud-based MST/AM slutin and withut ne? Will the use f a clud-based MST/AM slutin enable us t pstpne strage upgrades, making IT s jb easier and reducing ur verall IT csts? Will the use f a clud-based MST/AM slutin make it easier t migrate sme r all users t clud-based email if and when we want t d s? Will the use f a clud-based MST/AM slutin make it easier fr emplyees t use less expensive mbile platfrms (e.g., tablets vs. ntebks)? Will the use f a clud-based MST/AM slutin enable anytime/anywhere/any device access that users increasingly demand? Summary Migrating t Exchange 2010 is a majr undertaking, but ne that is typically wrth the effrt because f the imprvements it ffers when cmpared t earlier versins. Hwever, there are a few drawbacks assciated with an Exchange 2010 migratin, as well, nt least f which is the eliminatin f single instance strage. Because f this, and simply because a majr email platfrm upgrade shuld be viewed hlistically in terms f all cntent management prcesses, rganizatins shuld seriusly cnsider implementing a clud-based MST/AM slutin when they migrate t Exchange 2010. By using clud-based MST/AM, strage, IT and ther csts can be reduced, dramatically in sme cases. Abut YuSendIt YuSendIt, Inc. is the first clud cllabratin service t ffer an integrated apprach fr sending, sharing and signing dcuments nline. With ver 20 millin registered users in 193 cuntries, YuSendIt helps enterprises and business prfessinals streamline cllabratin by enabling them t instantly sync and access cntent in the clud and easily send files, share flders, and sign dcuments frm anywhere the desktp, Web r mbile devices. YuSendIt ffers a suite f prductivity tls that integrate seamlessly int cmmn desktp and mbile envirnments. With YuSendIt, cmpanies can alleviate ever-expanding email inbxes and verages, imprving perfrmance and prductivity while reducing csts and IT security risks. 2011 Osterman Research, Inc. 7
Headquartered in Campbell, Califrnia, YuSendIt is a privately held cmpany backed by venture capital firms Adams Street Partners, Ally Ventures, Emergence Capital, Sevin Rsen and Sigma Partners. Visit www.yusendit.cm r the YuSendIt blg fr mre infrmatin. 2011 Osterman Research, Inc. All rights reserved. N part f this dcument may be reprduced in any frm by any means, nr may it be distributed withut the permissin f Osterman Research, Inc., nr may it be resld r distributed by any entity ther than Osterman Research, Inc., withut prir written authrizatin f Osterman Research, Inc. Osterman Research, Inc. des nt prvide legal advice. Nthing in this dcument cnstitutes legal advice, nr shall this dcument r any sftware prduct r ther ffering referenced herein serve as a substitute fr the reader s cmpliance with any laws (including but nt limited t any act, statue, regulatin, rule, directive, administrative rder, executive rder, etc. (cllectively, Laws )) referenced in this dcument. If necessary, the reader shuld cnsult with cmpetent legal cunsel regarding any Laws referenced herein. Osterman Research, Inc. makes n representatin r warranty regarding the cmpleteness r accuracy f the infrmatin cntained in this dcument. THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED REPRESENTATIONS, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE DISCLAIMED, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DISCLAIMERS ARE DETERMINED TO BE ILLEGAL. 2011 Osterman Research, Inc. 8