Selecting mailbox migration software

Posted on May 7, 2014 by Tony Redmond

I am asked on a fairly regular basis to recommend software to migrate data from different systems to Exchange (either on-premises or cloud). I don’t want to endorse any software in any way, but I think it worthwhile to set down a number of principles that can be used to guide a company in making a choice from the available software.

Here are the consideration that I advise people to consider when the time comes to pick migration software:

  • Cost. This is actually an interesting topic because of the old adage that if you pay peanuts, you might get monkeys. In other words, sometimes the lowest cost option is not the best, especially when it comes to migrating content from a high-fidelity and high-function system like Lotus Notes. Migration from POP3 or IMAP4 is quite a different matter because all you need to worry about is how to move messages. Make sure that you understand the exact breakdown of all costs involved in using migration software, including fees for updates or annual license renewals.
  • Multi-type support. As noted above, it is relatively straightforward to move email messages from one repository to another. It is quite another matter to process calendar items, tasks, contacts, and other item types. The first issue is to understand what types are actually used and how they are used; the second is to ensure that the different types of items can be migrated in such a way that they remain useful when accessed through the target system.
  • Reputation. Check out customer experiences with different migration tools. In the Internet age, you can’t but find stories posted of migration horrors. Fewer exist of migration triumphs because humans generally don’t report their successes, but the problems will give you some guidance about pitfalls to avoid.
  • Test. Ask vendors for test licenses and test the migration process. Don’t test a small mailbox; take a copy of a nice juicy complicated mailbox and test what happens when that is processed. Include common user scenarios such as delegate access and shared mailboxes. Then do a set of mailboxes to understand how long it will take for the migration to happen and what to expect when it does happen. Make sure that the test mailboxes are of a reasonable size and age (very important). Any migration software can move 100MB mailboxes that have been created specially for test purposes. It’s much better to give them a nice fat 5GB mailbox that’s been in use for six or seven years and has been exposed to potential sources of corruptions (mobile clients and Outlook add-ins are the usual suspects). Always remember that real mailboxes expose real problems for migration software.
  • Support. Who delivers the support during your migration project? If it is a local reseller, what relationship do they have with the folks who actually write the code? What turnaround time is likely if you report problems and what escalation path is used to pursue the closure of problems? Do you have a guarantee that you will get a refund if the migration doesn’t work? How quick do you have to make up your mind about whether software is suitable?
  • Information. Apart from the sales-type information available on their web site that tells you just how wonderful their software really is, what other information does a vendor provide? Some vendors do an excellent job of documenting the technical side of their products, including some of the warts, and some do not. I prefer when detailed in-depth information is available. I expect that you do too.
  • Added value. Moving mailboxes is expected, but does the software give you any extra capabilities such as moving mailboxes in the background, scheduling capabilities, automation, or project management?
  • Post-migration tasks. What work must be done following mailbox moves to make users productive in the new environment? For instance, do you have to recreate Outlook profiles or will Autodiscover work with the new mailbox data?
  • What does the local Microsoft subsidiary use? Ask your local MCS contact to find out and ask why they made that selection (and what their experience has been). It’s not a deciding factor because the other factors have to considered too in the context of the data to be migrated, number, customer preferences, etc., but it’s a good thing to know – if only because your company might ask why you selected a different tool.
  • Applications. Although email systems serve to send and deliver email, many also include some aspect of application development. Lotus Notes is probably the best example as most Lotus Notes deployments include applications (the original raison d’etre for Notes). How will applications be migrated?
  • Plan B. Can you use the migration software to reverse course and move data back to the original system should the need arise? Having a one-way option is OK if you are absolutely sure that this is all that is required, but you’d be surprised how many times the need arises to move a mailbox back to its original home.

Some people love the technology exhibition at most large Microsoft-related conferences such as TechEd and MEC.  I don’t care for them very much because I think most of the vendors do pretty well the same thing as they’ve been doing for the last decade to attract customers (how many cheap t-shirts can you pick up at a conference?). There are some notable differences who try and make their stands more interesting and welcome (ENow Software (who also host excellent parties) and Binary Tree are two companies that come to mind in this respect), but in general I find exhibitions a drag. The reason why I mention them here is that they can be a very useful place to learn about migration software and, possibly even more important, to make contacts with developers who work on the code and might be able to help you during your migration projects.

Companies that I have commonly encountered in Exchange migration projects include the set listed below. Most can handle migrations to both on-premises and cloud Exchange and accommodate multiple sources including Lotus Notes, IMAP/POP, Gmail, GroupWise, and Zimbra.

Binary Tree

Skykick

Dell Software (ex Quest)

MigrationWiz

Priasoft

Again, no endorsement of any software is offered here and the list of available suppliers is acknowledged to be incomplete. Test them using some realistic mailboxes before you make a final choice.

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Posted in Email, Exchange, Office 365 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The end of Exchange? I don’t think so…

Posted on May 5, 2014 by Tony Redmond

“Be afraid”, be very afraid”… is the opening of a blog post by Scott Cameron, an account strategist for Microsoft, titled “Office 365: The End of Exchange?” It’s an odd post that combines a fair element of truth with some fairly dubious predictions. This is a topic that I am asked about often, so it’s worth a comment or three. I do this from the perspective of using Office 365 for my business and working with many companies who are quite happy with on-premises Exchange.

I agree with Scott’s assertion that messaging engineers and administrators need to build their cloud skills (or rather, their experience and knowledge of the technologies associated with cloud-based software) and that “you’re not building your skills you’re falling behind.”  This is good advice given the state of play within the industry and the rapidly growing acceptance of cloud platforms as an option for utility IT services like email. It’s also true that IT people who don’t continually build their skills do fall behind. We have seen this aspect of the industry play out many times in the past as IT has transitioned from mainframes to minicomputers to client-server and now cloud. About the only set of people who have managed to stay constant are those who write COBOL for mainframe applications, and there are precious few of those.

I could be pedantic and say that email timeline outlined in the post is flawed (in the early 90s, many people had email; for instance, DEC’s ALL-IN-1 Office System had more than 5 million corporate users; Gmail launched in 2004, not 2007; Office 365 launched in June 2011 not late 2011…), but that is not the heart of the argument.

I don’t agree with his view that on-premises email servers are in imminent danger of becoming extinct, nor that Office 365 is a universal panacea for all of the ailments from which on-premises Exchange might suffer. I have written about this topic before, stating a case why I don’t think on-premises Exchange is dead (and won’t die any time soon) and also pointing out that the success of Office 365 is still based on relatively small numbers when compared to the overall installed base.

Even Microsoft VP Perry Clarke, head of Exchange development “agreed that somewhere in the region of 40 percent of the total installed base will likely continue using on-premises software for at least the next several years” when I interviewed him last December. It’s true that Office 365 is continually growing and that Exchange Online has expanded by 600% since 2012 to now require a pool of 100,000 servers, but even so, the word coming through at the Microsoft Exchange Conference was that the next major version of on-premises Exchange is on track for delivery towards the end of 2015. Given the normal support lifetime of any Microsoft server application, we have evidence that on-premises Exchange will therefore be around for quite a while yet.

Although on-premises Exchange will persist, the pool of those running on-premises servers will decline over time, simply because it makes terrific sense for many companies to purchase email as a service. Why, for instance, would any start-up company consider installing their own Exchange server today? I also think it true that most small to medium companies (anything under 1,000 seats) will find it difficult to justify the expense of running their own email servers. It makes more economic sense for them to devote their time and energy towards building their business and creating added value rather than wondering how to deal with the next cumulative update for Exchange.

For this reason I agree that those running “vanilla” on-premises servers today need to increase their skills so that they can deal with hybrid deployments or a migration to the cloud. And after that migration is complete, the administrators need to understand what role they have to play in the new world. That probably means that new skills have to be acquired because many of the old skills are not needed when servers are managed within Office 365. It’s good to have a strong job continuation program…

But there are many companies that cloud services for whom cloud services do not make sense. At least, not in today’s world. Things might change – and will probably change – over time, which is good reason to keep an eye on what’s happening, but for the moment some difficulties and challenges exist that allow a fair argument to be made against moving to the cloud. The list of excuses for not embracing the cloud described in the blog is amusing and valid in some cases, but real-life and relevant reasons do exist when embracing the cloud does not make sense.

For example, companies who are unhappy about the PRISM revelations and the notion of losing control of their data are unlikely to want to embrace the cloud today. Microsoft can argue as much as it likes that they do not allow unfettered government access to data, but the point is that people believe that this happens. The FUD principle has always been a useful one to deploy in making a case for one technical choice over another.

Networking is another issue. Some companies – even in highly developed nations such as the United States – operate in areas where copious amounts of high-quality bandwidth cannot be secured. Some of these companies find it difficult to network operations today; the prospect of moving everything to the cloud leaves them cold. I am reminded of this at every conference I attend by people who are in this position (normally after I’ve just told an audience why cloud services are good).

Evergreen software is touted as a great advantage of the cloud. And it is, but only for technologists. Normal users (and those who have to support those users) are often unhappy when user interfaces change. Microsoft promises to make many changes in Outlook Web App over the next year to introduce new features like “Clutter” (one that I am looking forward to), but the prospect of seeing new machine-learning technology being suddenly revealed to end users is a cultural change with which some are still uncomfortable.

Support remains the Achilles Heel of the cloud. First level support is often script-driven and tiresome. It is a necessary evil that has to be endured before you can be escalated to someone who might understand what is happening. Even then, because of the scale of the cloud and the absolute and understandable need to restrict change to the absolute minimum (to avoid adverse impact on other tenants), even second level support cannot do much in a practical sense except gather evidence to support a case for further action. In short, the Office 365 support experience can be very slooooow…

My point is that every computing platform ever developed has both advantages and disadvantages. The trick is to maximize one and minimize the other as you make technology choices for your business. The table below provides some areas for comparison. As every company is different, you need to put this data into context with business needs, operational and IT requirements, economic situation, and available skills to come up with an answer for a particular company.

Office 365/Exchange Online On-premises Exchange
Security (many certifications attest to this) Security and Privacy (tailored for the company)
Predictability – what the cloud vendor says you get, you get Flexibility – you can tailor the software with third-party or bespoke code to meet business requirements
Evergreen software deployed as the cloud vendor dictates Control over when and how client software is deployed
Slow, script-driven support Responsive, user-sensitive support
Fixed monthly cost per mailbox (but don’t forget the extras, like ADFS for hybrid deployments) Tighter control over cost (possible, not always practised)
Data secured through native data protection Data secured through native data protection and traditional backups
Financially guaranteed SLA (as measured by Microsoft) SLA remains in the control of the IT department (possibly worse than achieved by Office 365)

As Scott concludes in his post “Are you ready for the cloud?  Time’s up.  It’s here.” Yes it is, but it’s been here for a while and some of the issues remain unsolved. That’s why on-premises Exchange and its strong hybrid capabilities remain a key player for Microsoft in this market. Clouds float. The right one will come along – eventually.

The other thing to remember is that a post written by someone who works for a supplier is always prone to bias. The author might not be intentionally biased and attempts to write without bias, but the fact that their pay check is linked in some way, shape, or form to success in a particular area creates huge potential for bias. And given that Microsoft is going through a “cloud first, mobile first” upheaval at present, it’s reasonable to expect that the corporate Kool-Aid is being consumed in a major way by many employees.

It’s always been the way… well before cloud services ever appeared.

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Posted in Cloud, Email, Exchange, Exchange 2010, Office 365 | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Recommended: Windows Phone 8.1 update

Posted on May 2, 2014 by Tony Redmond

It’s been two weeks since I took Paul Thurrott’s advice to upgrade my Nokia Lumia 1020 to Windows Phone 8.1 (the developer pre-release). In that time I have roamed from Ireland to France and Italy and the phone has functioned perfectly, so all I can report is that this is an upgrade worth having.

That is, if you are willing to accept the obvious limitations that come along with the upgrade. In a nutshell, these are:

  • You’ll probably lose support from your mobile operator for any problem that occurs with the phone. Most operators aren’t too impressed when users take it upon themselves to apply code that the operator knows little or nothing about, and you can be guaranteed that any of the staff you meet in one of the operator’s shops will know less about Windows Phone 8.1 than you do. On the other hand, they’ll be happy to talk to you about iPhone or Android devices, a sad reflection on the state of Windows Phone in the mobile marketplace.
  • There’s no way back. Once you update your device to Windows Phone 8.1 you cannot restore Windows Phone 8 (WP8).
  • Mobile operator code is missing. In most cases this is an advantage as mobile operators do seem to have the habit of putting some awful rubbish on devices before providing phones to customers. It certainly didn’t worry me to lose links to EBay and the like that clutter up the phone screen when it came out of the box. But I accept that some operators do place useful code on devices, so you need to take this into account before applying the update.

Another caveat is that some devices will be more amenable to upgrades than others. The fact that Paul had upgraded his Nokia Lumia 1020 gave me a lot of confidence that I wouldn’t hit any problems. The same case might not exist for other devices, so it’s worth searching to find out if anyone else has upgraded your particular model before you take the plunge.

All of the apps previously installed on the phone continued to work following the upgrade, which is always a relief. Some obvious differences exist, such as a separate FM Radio app (which works better than the radio part of the music hub in WP8) and the way that the different social networking apps update the People hub, but generally devices work as you’d expect. I did note that the battery life indicator appeared to register very low readings for a few days following the update but normal operation has largely resumed and battery life is much the same as it was with WP8.

The new calendar view is worth the update alone. Looking at a WP8 calendar often required a great deal of squinting to determine detail. The new layout is much easier to navigate and find information.

Of course, Cortana is the headline app. But because I live in Ireland, Cortana was unavailable after the update. This is because Cortana is not fully internationalized yet – as described in this article, you need to update your regional and language settings to something that is supported (like U.S. English) before Cortana will deign to speak with you. “U.S. English” is actually a difficult thing to define given that so many regional accents exist in the U.S. and so many people from different backgrounds pronounce words or phrases in various ways. It’s the same for every country and I am sure that some work is now ongoing to capture the mysteries of Irish regional dialects before Cortana can be launched in its true glory here.

But I think I shall not use Cortana very much. It’s a neat party trick and people will enjoy its party tricks (like asking Cortana “who’s your daddy”), but only once. Making voice recognition work really well is a very difficult technical challenge. Perhaps I shall like Cortana better as time goes by but for now better reasons exist to upgrade. Unless you really do want to play with Cortana…

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Posted in Technology | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Exchange Unwashed Digest – April 2014

Posted on May 1, 2014 by Tony Redmond

If only because it started with the last two days of the Microsoft Exchange Conference (MEC), April 2014 was quite a month for the Exchange community. Here’s what I discussed during the month in my “Exchange Unwashed” blog on WindowsITPro.com.

Exchange 2013 is a resource hog – no surprise there (April 29): Software has a habit of requiring more resources as versions roll out. It’s always been the way, even when we wrote in machine code. New features have to be paid for in code and code requires resources. Exchange 2013 is a different beast to Exchange 2010 or Exchange 2007 and the bill of materials required for a new server might surprise those who anticipate that it’s going to be the same again. Only it isn’t.

Why installing a multirole Exchange 2013 server is the best option (April 24): In another example of how I often explain the blindingly obvious, this post explains why you should never install a single-role Exchange 2013 server for general use. That is, unless you’re Microsoft and are running Office 365.

Value simplicity above complexity in Exchange designs, deployments, and operations (April 22): One of the big themes pursued by Microsoft at MEC was that simplicity is good. You can’t really argue against this theory because complexity invariably gets in the way during deployments and operations. Here’s why I think you should embrace the mantra in Exchange projects.

Best practice evolves as knowledge transfers from Office 365 to on-premises Exchange (April 17): Many complain that Microsoft is too focused on cloud computing these days to the detriment of on-premises customers. It’s true that they are certainly focused on Office 365, Azure, etc., but good things do flow from this activity. One is new features that show up in the on-premises product (I could argue a case for Managed Availability, but this might be shouted down). Another is when knowledge transfers – which happened a lot at MEC.

DAG or server: A database’s got to be owned somewhere (April 15): This post arose from a bug that Paul Cunningham (Mr ExchangeServerPro) encountered with an Exchange 2013 server. The bug is now fixed but the topic deserved some discussion because people might not realize that every Exchange database is owned by an entity – either a server or a DAG. And that’s the way it should be.

Cherish old Exchange databases to avoid the pesky DatabaseGuidNotFound error (April 11): An irritating bug in Exchange 2013 SP1 means that you have to keep old Exchange 2007 or Exchange 2010 mailbox databases around for a little while after you move mailboxes to their new homes. It’s all because OWA and EAS clients like to know what’s happening and where they’ve come from. Or something like that.

Being open about Office 365 operations drives credibility of “the service” (April 10): Like everyone else, I have my own favourite sessions at any conference. Vivek Sharma’s MEC session on how Microsoft runs Exchange Online at massive scale is one of mine (you can view the session online). Talking about “the service” in such an open manner helps people to understand the challenges that the Microsoft team faces. By explaining the steps that they have taken to meet the challenges and solve problems that arise, Microsoft gains huge credibility. View the session. You’ll like it.

Office 365 transitions to Microsoft’s own Message Encryption Technology (April 8): Keeping messages secret is important to many, which is the reason why Office 365 and many other email systems support encryption. But Office 365 recently changed its encryption technology away from code licensed from a third party to its own software. Sounds good! But there are consequences when a service provider makes fundamental changes of this nature – like being able to access old encrypted email. Something to think about…

Microsoft Exchange Conference 2014 finishes on a high (April 3): MEC was great, a point I made in this wrap-up article. I loved the energy, the great content, the speakers and the chance to meet old friends. I hated the coffee (luke-warm, brownish, and revolting) and the conference food lived up to its expectations. And my photographic friend ended up on a tour of the bars and other sights of Austin, led astray by some members of the Exchange development group. How strange!

Day 2 of MEC delivers great sessions, great content (April 2): High Availability, new features, and Office 365 – an explosive mix to some. And then we came to virtualization and my all-time happiest debate about why Exchange does not support NFS storage. As it happened, very few people in the room (1-2 of hundreds) expressed any interest in NFS storage, a statistic that tells its own story (click to view the session). But the NFS people won’t be happy because Jeff Mealiffe is right…

Understanding the messages from the Exchange Conference keynote (April 1): Executives who work at technology conferences are only happy when they get a chance to deliver a conference keynote. So it’s compulsory for all conferences to have keynotes and for all conference attendees to sit and listen to the golden words of those nominated to take the stage. And sit through demos that don’t work (which happened with OWA and DLP this time), attempt to hear the mutterings of some on the stage who can barely be heard three rows back (the acoustics were awful), and applaud the badly-acted friendly chit-chat that is deemed to be a good way to communicate with the audience. But after all that, there were some good messages to take away from the keynote, which is what this article is all about. I think.

And so on to May and another month of happenings in the Exchange world. Given that Exchange 2013 SP1 appeared in February, it must be time for a new cumulative update to be dropped into our laps. What joy! At least it will give me more to write about in “Exchange Unwashed.”

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Posted in Email, Exchange, Exchange 2010, Exchange 2013, Office 365 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Whoops – there goes my domain controller during an Exchange update

Posted on April 26, 2014 by Tony Redmond

What to do on a lazy Saturday afternoon? Ah, let’s go and update some Exchange 2013 servers with a new build. Just the thing to do so as to be able to avoid the plaintive cries of “the grass needs to be cut” or “that hedge needs trimming.”

So off I go to reacquaint myself with my good friend Setup,cmd. Of course, I’m only upgrading some virtual servers that I use for lab work here – upgrading production servers on a whim, even if it is to avoid any element of gardening, is not recommended.

All goes well initially, until I notice that my domain controller has announced that it is about to reboot itself following some critical updates. “No worry.” you say, “pause the reboot.” Until that is you notice that Microsoft has not provided Windows 2012 Server with a convenient button to stop a server rebooting itself. And searching the Internet for a solution isn’t a great answer either because a) by the time you’ve found a solution, the server will have rebooted itself and b) most of the pages that I found (like this one) indicate that an attempt to stop a reboot will probably fail.

The problem here is not really the reboot. After all, the reboot will do some good as files that cannot be replaced when the server is running will be moved into place post reboot. All manner of bugs will be fixed and I should be a happier camper. Unless you’re updating an Exchange server because the Exchange installation program is extraordinarily fond of consulting Active Directory for anything and everything. This is understandable to a point because Exchange stuffs away lots of configuration data in Active Directory. Nevertheless, a casual browse of an Exchange setup log post-installation will show that the installation just loves to chat with Active Directory.

I don’t have a problem with the installation program communicating with Active Directory, as long as Active Directory is available. On the other hand, if the one and only domain controller has been taken offline by the need of the server to reboot itself, all manner of bad things can happen to an Exchange installation. It’s not good when Exchange attempts to contact Active Directory only to be met with a void. The installation program doesn’t like that – at all.

Fortunately, the reboot happened right at the point when the installation program is least likely to want to reach out and connect to a domain controller – the “Copying Exchange Files” phase. The domain controller came back online after the reboot and was available when Exchange next needed to communicate with Active Directory, so all was well.

This experience added yet another thing to the list of things that should be done before embarking on an Exchange update – to make sure that servers won’t be rebooted automatically during the update.

No damage was caused (except to my blood pressure). All servers were upgraded smoothly. On to the next update – after checking for imminent reboots of course!

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Posted in Exchange | Tagged , | 3 Comments

How not to request a product review

Posted on April 21, 2014 by Tony Redmond

Like many of my fellow Microsoft MVPs, I regularly receive messages from software vendors requesting me to review their products. This is not unexpected as it’s perfectly reasonable for vendors to seek reaction and feedback about their work from people who are active in the industry. The fact that a product review might be positive and therefore usable in publicity is just a side-effect. Or perhaps not.

In any case, most requests find their way to my electronic wastebasket. There’s not enough time available to go through the process of downloading software, finding suitable systems on which to install the code, grappling with the inevitable pre-requisites and other requirements that must be met before the software will install, learning enough about its functionality to make an intelligent assessment, and finally writing and publishing a review.

Setting up a realistic test of any software usually takes a couple of days and then you have to remove the software in case it causes problems with other products, future updates, and so on. Those who complain about Microsoft’s testing prowess when it comes to the interaction between Exchange and third-party products should try installing a couple of third-party products on the same Exchange server. The “interaction” between different products can be interesting and instructive. And those who complain about TechNet might have a look at product documentation generated elsewhere. You’ll like TechNet afterwards.

In any case, I have plenty of other things to write about without having to figure out the details of yet another software installation, which accounts for the automatic reflex that exists in my brain to delete email announcing the chance to test software.

Perhaps my attitude would be different if the typical message asking for a review was well written. Take the following text from a recent communication. I have removed some text and altered some words to protect the company that sent me the email. However, you’ll get the gist:

From: Webmaster Blah [mailto:webmaster@blahgroup.com]
Sent: 03 April 2014 06:38
To: Tony Redmond
Subject: Request for Product Review

Dear MVP,
Mr. Tony Redmond

(http://windowsitpro.com/blog/tony-redmonds-exchange-unwashed-blog)

I am writing on behalf of Blah Data.

I stumbled upon your blog through Google Search and found quite a bit of useful information.

We would like to introduce our company Blah Data established since 2007.  We have around 50 K satisfied customers across 80 countries and 150+ products to fulfill the user requirements. Blah is a leading data recovery company and our products are trusted globally by corporate and home users.

We would appreciate if you can have a look at our product Blah Software is an effective EDB to PST conversion tool that will allow users to repair damaged EDB file and convert it into PST. The software is capable to convert multiple exchange mailboxes in one go.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Thank you for your time and consideration

Thanks & Regards
James Smith

I’m sure that James Smith is a skilled marketing professional but really…

  • It would be nice if the message was personalized. The way it is written makes it seem like it’s a form note sent to many different MVPs. I especially like the “Dear MVP” salutation.
  • James stumbled upon my blog through Google Search. There’s no notion of a detailed examination of the market to identify subject matter experts there, just a stumbling through the output of Google search to find people. For all I know, I might have earned this chance to review the software by random choice. Being selected in this way made me feel very special.
  • I’m sure that the company carries out its business in a laudable manner. Hyperbole is to be expected and it is laid on thick with statements such as “… a leading data recovery company… trusted globally…” No backing data is provided to support the assertions (are all of their 50K claimed customers truly happy, I wonder). I had not heard of this company before receiving the email. Clearly a deficiency on my part.
  • The lack of punctuation and the indefinite article in the paragraph exhorting me to look at the product creates an impression of a hastily written message. Not just one, but two. The last sentence in that paragraph is odd too. I imagine that it refers to Exchange (the product) rather than some odd interaction involving conversion, but it’s hard to understand what the writer means.

Leaving aside the copious thanks that close the message, the overall impression is that this company does not really care about their image as projected through communication with people who might review their products. The lack of attention to detail makes me think that their software is likely to exhibit the same characteristics and confirms that I should not bother to go anywhere near it.

They asked for a review and got one. It’s just that their email was reviewed rather than their software. And they failed. Absolutely.

If I write anything about a software product, I do so independently and because I am interested in the product rather than being asked (or paid) by a software vendor. That’s the only way to remain objective in a world where so many so-called reviews are barely-disguised paid-for advertisements that are worth not a jot.

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Posted in Exchange, Technology | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Noise-cancelling headphones and laptop woes

Posted on April 14, 2014 by Tony Redmond

Reading the Forbes.com review of the Bose QuietComfort 20 in-ear headphones, I am reminded quite how good these headphones are.  The review goes into a level of technical detail that audiophiles will enjoy. All I can say is that I use these headphones every day and enjoy their capabilities very much indeed.

I bought my QuietComfort 20 (which also comes in a 20i variant for iPhones) last October as a replacement for a set of Bose MIE2 headphones (yes, I like Bose products), mostly because the MIE2 set is not particularly good in airplanes and other noisy environments. That’s not surprising because the MIE2 is not designed to cancel noise in the way that the larger model Bose QuietComfort 2 or 3. I used to carry an older-model headset with me when I was taking long-haul flights weekly but tired of the size of the sets. The fact that noise-cancelling capabilities were bundled into a smaller form factor seemed like a good thing and justified the expense.

Since then I’ve used the QC20 in airplanes and many other noisy environments such as alongside busy roads and in all cases I can say that the performance in terms of noise suppression is impressive. It’s meant that I have been able to turn down the volume of my Nokia Lumia 1020 (which I use to listen to radio and podcasts) while still being able to hear everything clearly.

The sole weakness I have found in comparison to earlier Bose in-ear headphones is that the more rigid wire between the headphones and the device that you use (like my Lumia 1020) is not at good in acting as an aerial for FM radio. This might be because the wire is better protected than before, which is a good thing as the wires on other Bose sets have a tendency to part near the earphones after a while. However, it does mean that I hear a lot more static than before when listening to the radio in any but optimum conditions.

I do wish that the battery lasted a little longer as it seems to expire at the most inconvenient time, probably due to my own incompetence at monitoring its use. Overall, the QC20 is truly worth the money if you want something that’s extremely portable, high quality, and guaranteed to make even the tinny sound of an aircraft sound system sound good.

It’s nice when technology works and not so nice when it doesn’t deliver as expected, which was the case when I bought an HP Envy 17-184nr laptop. I like big best gaming laptop under 1500, which I use as desktop replacements, and was very happy with the previous HP Envy 17 model. However, the Envy 17s are designed as consumer PCs and two years of hard work had made the 17 cranky and noisy (one reason to wear a noise-cancelling headset), so I decided to take advantage of some recent cost reductions to buy a replacement. The new Envy 17s come with fast CPUs, great 17″ full HD screens, and Beats Audio (whatever that means).

Typically, I remove the hard disk that comes with laptops and replace it with a high-performing SSD (in this case, the Samsung Pro Series 512GB) and some extra memory so that the laptop can easily handle running several virtual servers. I like the Envy 17s because they come with two hard disk slots and so went ahead and bought two SSDs for the upgrade.

However, I wasn’t impressed when I discovered that HP doesn’t include the SATA cable necessary to connect the second drive to the motherboard. Nor do they include the rubber fittings that keep the primary hard drive in place (and getting them off the standard drive is a pain). I guess not many people go ahead and upgrade their laptops so it’s reasonable for HP to assume that they can save a few dollars per laptop by cutting back on the extras. But it was unexpected  – and discovering the necessary parts isn’t easy, even if you examine the HP Envy 17-184nr manual carefully. On the plus side, the 17-184nr is easier to work with as only one screw needs to be removed (rather than 6 for the older model) to gain access to disk bays, memory sockets, and so on.

Oh well. It’s all working now and I’m happy with the performance of the laptop. But technology wouldn’t be technology if you didn’t have something to complain about, would it?

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Posted in Technology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What Microsoft needs to do to fix modern public folders

Posted on April 9, 2014 by Tony Redmond

The amiable Kanika Ramji, program manager for Exchange public folders, might have gulped a little when she saw the packed crowd at the “Experts Unplugged” session covering Exchange’s longest-lasting and most-persistent collaboration technology at the Microsoft Exchange Conference (MEC) on April 1. After all, the Internet had buzzed with criticism after Microsoft revealed the scalability limitations that afflict modern public folders and much of the passion surrounding that issue had transferred into the room.

After the session I think Kanika was more optimistic because the discussion never descended into bickering and hostility. Sure, some strong words were said, but the net outcome of the session (which proved the wisdom of including this kind of interaction at MEC) was extremely positive. The development group went away with clear marching orders as to what should be done: fix the scalability problems, OWA support for calendar and contact public folders, and better management and reporting tools.

The discussion about scalability was interesting. Microsoft couldn’t but admit that the 10,000 public folder limit was ridiculous. Many people in the room represented companies with over 100,000 old-style public folders and hard questions were asked about how Exchange 2013 could have shipped without the scalability limits being known.

It’s hard to change a software architecture to something radically different. New-style public folders hold their content in public folder mailboxes instead of dedicated databases. There’s nothing wrong here because Exchange databases are very scalable and high performing. The issue is all to do with the public folder hierarchy and specifically, how updates have to be made to the primary copy of the hierarchy, which is automatically created in the first public folder mailbox in an organization (a good reason to get this aspect of your deployment correct).

In a busy public folder deployment, it’s quite likely that folder updates happen regularly. Each update has to be referred back to the primary public folder mailbox and then rippled out to all of the other mailboxes, each of which holds a copy of the hierarchy. The current model works well inside small deployments but runs out of steam as the number of folders (and therefore the likelihood of more updates) scales up. Microsoft set the current limit at 10,000 folders because they know that everything works at this threshold. Pass it and you run into increasing instability as the primary copy of the public folder hierarchy struggles to cope with inbound changes and the subsequent updates back to the hierarchy copies.

Microsoft says that they want to get the limit up to 1,000,000 folders. A reasonable amount of engineering effort and (possibly more important) test and validation will be needed to get them to that point. Until they do, customers who want to move large numbers of public folders to on-premises Exchange 2013 servers or Exchange Online in Office 365 will simply have to wait. No timescale was promised but reassurance was given that this is a top-priority work item. We shall just have to wait and see.

One thing is for sure. Microsoft understands that the credibility of their attempts to modernize public folders and to reassure customers, all of whom have used Exchange for a very long time, is at stake. They have to fix the scalability problems this time round. No other option exists.

And while Microsoft is working at improving modern public folders, perhaps they’ll also fix the other horrible flaw that exists in the implementation – the fact that if you lose the mailbox containing the primary hierarchy, no method is available to transfer responsibility for hierarchy updates to one of the secondary copies currently exists. That doesn’t sound like a highly available solution and it’s a huge and gaping hole in the current implementation. It’s funny how the passing of time and the pressure of real customer deployments exposes all the flaws in computer systems.

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Posted in Email, Exchange, Exchange 2013, Office 365 | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Exchange Unwashed Digest: March 2014

Posted on April 7, 2014 by Tony Redmond

March 2014 saw a lot of preparatory effort for the Microsoft Exchange Conference in Austin, which took place at the end of the month. However, before we got to MEC, we had to cope with a late breaking bug for Exchange 2013 SP1 and some other stuff too… Here’s what happened in my “Exchange Unwashed” blog in March.

Exchange 2013 SP1 suffers late-breaking bug that affects third-party products (March 5): I felt so bad for the Exchange developers when a really late change in a couple of lines of XML code caused problems for third-party products that depend on transport agents to integrate with Exchange. Fortunately the fix is easy and I regard SP1 as easily the best and most stable release of Exchange 2013 to date.

EMS command logging reappears in Exchange 2013 SP1 (March 6): One of the features reintroduced in Exchange 2013 SP1 is command logging, which means that you can see the PowerShell commands executed by EAC as it performs actions. It’s good to see this feature back because similar features in the Exchange 2007 and 2010 EMC allowed administrators to come to grips with the syntax and use of PowerShell. I hope that they do something to remove the gratuitous use of GUIDs to identify objects like databases because it makes the output less useful. I think they might – at least, I heard at MEC that the conversation has started.

Apple releases iOS 7.1 – Exchange administrators applaud (or not) (March 10): This was really good news because nothing happened after the iOS 7.1 release reached iPhone and iPad devices that connect to Exchange with ActiveSync (EAS). The reason why is that it proves that the work done by Apple (to fix their code that calls EAS to communicate with Exchange) and Microsoft (to bulletproof Exchange 2013 and the latest builds of Exchange 2010 – and of course, Exchange Online – so that bad client behavior won’t affect the server) works. That’s something that we should applaud. And I do.

Exchange’s interesting document fingerprinting feature (March 11): Another new feature introduced in Exchange 2013 SP1 and another that I like very much. Basically the idea is that you can provide Exchange with examples of documents that contain sensitive information. Exchange creates a digital fingerprint for the document that can then be included as a data type that transport rules should check. A very good way to extend the DLP feature and one that I think will be very popular with customers.

Contemplating the RSS feed for Exchange Knowledge Base articles (March 13): Microsoft provides an RSS feed for new Exchange 2013 knowledge base articles (other feeds cover other versions). There’s lots of useful information to be mined from the feed, if only it wasn’t quite so repetitive.

Exchange message tracing extended to 90 days in Office 365 – what about the on-premises version? (March 18): Message tracking has always been part of Exchange and it’s a very useful facility because it helps administrators to answer the immortal question posed by users “what happened to my message.” Office 365 now allows you to track messages up to 90 days old and has a nice new GUI to help. It would be so nice to see this utility being provided to on-premises customers, don’t you think?

No warning about patch required for Exchange 2013 SP1 (March 20): As is well known, I hate chastising the Exchange development group. Unless there’s good reason to do so, of course. And so there was on March 20 when I had to point out that customers could be left in the dark about the need to patch Exchange 2013 SP1 for the pesky transport agent problem referred to above. But all is well now because Microsoft responded by updating the knowledge base articles, which is a reasonable solution to the issue.

Technology is so much easier when everyone shares their knowledge (March 25): This is kind of a mixed post. On the one hand, I used it to recognize some of the important contributions made within the Exchange community. On the other, I complained that some of my fellow Exchange MVPs could do a lot better in how they contributed. But I’m a grumpy old man and it’s OK to complain – right?

What to do (and what not to do) at the Microsoft Exchange Conference (March 27): The last post of the month set out my thoughts on how MEC attendees might approach the conference so as to make best use of their time. It will be interesting to see if anyone now comments whether the advice was any use. Of course, I think it was, but I could be wrong.

MEC has been and gone and we’re already well into April. Lots to write about keeps on appearing. It’s great to work with technology.

Follow Tony and stay updated with my thoughts as they come to mind on @12Knocksinna

Posted in Email, Exchange, Exchange 2013 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The colorful side of MEC 2014: All the stuff that makes a conference

Posted on April 3, 2014 by Tony Redmond

What can I say about the Microsoft Exchange Conference (MEC) that recently finished in Austin? Lots of blogs and other comments have already been posted, including my assessment of the messages contained in the day 1 keynote, the splendor of the sessions delivered on day 2, and some closing thoughts on the most important messages coming from the conference.

But there’s always more to say. Like describing the colorful side of MEC, the side that compliments and balances the formal array of sessions and other carefully arranged events that populate the agenda. Here’s my take on the best stuff from MEC 2014.

Yammer: Microsoft is doing its best to convince people that Yammer is useful. And so it came to pass that all the MEC attendees were invited to participate in a Yammer something. Various made-up nouns are used to describe this like “YamJam”, none of which I understand. In any case, I gave it my best shot and duly emerged as a wonderful contributor to the yamming… Seriously, every technology has its place and its advocates like Christophe Fiessinger do their best to advance the cause. It will be interesting to see where Yammer ends up. I doubt I shall end up as a Yammer MVP!

Yammer stats from MEC

Yammer stats from MEC

Pillow and Skittles: The nice people who run the MVP program in Microsoft like to publicize the names and faces of the MVPs so that people recognize and know us. And so we ended up with our faces being plastered all over boards (pretty normal) and pillows and skittles. The pillows were the kind that you would only ever use at a technology conference and should never appear in a home environment. Microsoft VP and head of Exchange development Perry Clarke demonstrated the correct way to use the pillow, but I’m still not having one anywhere near me. As to the packets of skittles featuring beaming MVP faces? Well, the skittles were nice and the packaging was easily disposed. Enough said.

Warning: sleeping Perry can be dangerous

Warning: sleeping Perry can be dangerous

Best Session: An easy choice. Vivek Sharma did a fantastic job of explaining what happens behind the scenes to deliver Exchange Online at massive scale. The detail he provided about workflow processing, capacity management, reporting and analysis, and all-in commitment to keeping the service running added to the credibility of Office 365. You might have doubted Office 365 before this session, but not afterwards.

Session with most blank faces: Tim McMichael delivered an incredible session about the way that Exchange leverages Windows Failover Clustering to enable Database Availability Groups. I enjoyed it very much, but I noticed that many in the audience struggled to cope with the sheer amount of detail provided by Tim. He’s obviously an expert who positively wallows in the details of all things related to clusters.

Worse session: There was no worst session, at least not in those that I attended. The keynote ranks as the most disappointing session as its energy level, pacing, and delivery just wasn’t at the expected standard. Things weren’t helped by lousy audio in the ballroom, a surprising thing when professional audio technicians are available to tune the sound. Our “Experts Unplugged: Support Issues” session on Monday afternoon was afflicted by bad audio too. I was positioned on the right hand side of the stage and couldn’t hear Tim Heeney speak from the far left hand side. Nor could I hear many of the questions that came in front the audience. My bad ears or poor audio arrangements? I think the latter.

An evolving conference: Technology conferences can be accused of following the same old playbook year in year out. I think TechEd is certainly guilty of this practice. MEC tried some different things and the best evolution was the Experts Unplugged sessions. Some of these didn’t work because of poor audience participation (no questions) or the wrong set of experts. But those that did fairly sizzled with a cut-and-thrust between experts and audiences as questions were posed and debated. Small rooms and a mixture of talents on the panel appear to be the recipe for success here.

Cardboard Tony at the Exchange Museum

Cardboard Tony at the Exchange Museum

The walkabout cutout: The nice people at Microsoft asked me for a headshot the week before MEC. That headshot was duly Photoshopped onto a body that was 40 pounds lighter than reality and sporting a red velvet bowtie that I wouldn’t wear in a fit. But the cutout seemed to be a popular place for photos outside the Exchange museum (lots of good stuff to view there) and it was stolen at the end of MEC by some nameless (and shameless) product group members who took the unfortunate Tony on a tour of Austin. Each stage on the cutout’s progress was recorded photographically, including some interesting shots with members of the public who obviously thought that they were being filmed for some weird TV show. My cardboard friend ended up in the Old School Grill at the speaker party, where he joined the band. Latest reports are that he made a flight to Seattle and is now somewhere in Redmond. How appropriate!

Cardboard Tony in the Old School House bar

Cardboard Tony in the Old School Grill bar

Quizzes: Binary Tree and ENow Software both ran good quizzes at MEC. Binary Tree took their name and used it as the basis for binary code puzzles that people had to solve. I think many cheated and used online binary calculators to solve the puzzles but that’s OK. Many also used the InterWeb to check the trivia questions posed in the ENow Software quiz and four bright sparks ended up fighting it out for the $1,000 cash prize. I was invited to host the final round and delighted in asking five tough questions extracted from my treasure trove of Exchange trivia (otherwise known as rubbish long forgotten). The winner ended up with ten crisp $100 bills, but it was funnier to see the face of Maarten Piederiet, the runner-up, as he received 500 $1 bills to take home to Holland.

The final stages of the Enow quiz (credit: J. Peter Bruzzese)

The final stages of the Enow quiz (credit: J. Peter Bruzzese)

Meals and drinks: No one expects gourmet food at a technology conference and we were not disappointed at MEC. Any of the food I tried was rubbery, warmish, and basically awful. Nothing out of the ordinary there. I was disappointed at the inability of the caterers to provide hot coffee though. Any cup I poured was tepid brown ink. Uuugh.

Gifts: Many thanks to the nice people at SolarWinds who gave me a brand new xBox One because I was the top tweeter at MEC. I’m past the age when xBox gaming is really attractive and anyway, a U.S. device wasn’t going to function too well in Ireland, even if I paid the outlandish customs duty that the fine customs staff at Dublin Airport were likely to extract if I turned up with the xBox. So I gifted it to Greg Taylor of Microsoft for his kids. And Greg gave me his Dell Venue Pro, the gift provided to all MEC attendees – and appreciated by almost everyone. There seems to have been some problems with devices but that’s to be expected and the problematic Venues were quickly swapped, so all is well.

Logistics: Generally logistics worked extremely well and the organizers executed everything needed to deliver an impressive conference. The fact that no paper guides were produced puzzled some but then again, you don’t need paper when the conference web site is so good and you’re given a Windows tablet to access it and the OneNote notebook containing all the conference info. I liked this a lot.

Twitter: I tweeted a lot from MEC in a form of experiment for myself. I normally write down notes at a conference and decided to replace this with short tweets to capture essential information as I heard it in sessions (feel free to review my Twitter stream to see what you think). Like any other tool, it’s important to use Twitter the right way to be effective. I was happy that I captured information that is useful to me and seemed to be useful to others who consumed it. I apologize to anyone who was offended by the tone of some of the tweets, especially when I was under inspired by the keynote. As I said to Jeff Teper, social networking is a double-edged tool: when things are going for you, social networking acts as an accelerant. When things aren’t going so well, the same effect applies.

So that’s it – the unseen side of MEC, the bits that make conferences enjoyable events to attend. I also enjoyed meeting those who attended MEC in different roles – vendors (I know booth duty can be excruciatingly difficult at times), product group members (lots of new faces), other Microsoft employees (the support guys, consulting staff, and others), MVPs (a great bunch), and everyone else. You all made MEC. It was great.

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Posted in Cloud, Email, Exchange, Office 365, Outlook, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments