Microsoft Exchange Server 2010
When your business runs on Microsoft Exchange, upgrading isn't something to be taken lightly. So is it worth taking the step-up to Exchange Server 2010?
14 December 2009
Exchange Server 2007 was a pretty massive leap - it broke down what was one 'big product' into several more efficient components (mailbox store, hub transport server and client access server), albeit that worked in a unified way. Exchange Server 2010 isn't a drastic departure from 2007, instead it builds on what's there - and, on the surface at least, is largely familiar.
But of course companies always want to increase reliability and performance, and, at the same time, reduce costs. So some things have to change.
Exchange Server 2007 had already squeezed the I/O of the product by 70% - because this is one of the main factors affecting running costs. Exchange Server 2010 reduces 1/O by a further 50%, so it's a highly efficient beast.
Exchange has made some significant changes to the way that mailboxes work. For instance, they can now replicate continuously without having to resort to you setting up clusters. You can even use this where you have just a couple of servers or want to use cheaper storage options. Rather neatly, you can now move mailboxes around while everything is running, without a break in the service - since the client does not now talk directly to the mailbox store, but rather to the client access server, which neatly separates the back end from the front.
The often talked about move to SQL Server as the database engine hasn't again happened in Exchange Server 2010, presumably because - despite SQL's strengths - the Extensible Storage Engine remains efficient enough, and perhaps more efficient, than SQL.
It is technically possible to install Exchange on an existing Windows Server box, but Microsoft doesn't recommend it - they say you need at least two servers to separate out the tasks of hub transport, edge transport, mailbox and client access.
Drawing a firm line in the sand between its older products, Exchange Server 2010 is 64-bit only and needs Windows Server 2008 - possibly forcing a bigger, but ultimately more effective upgrade for organisations. The good news is that the installation process itself checks the environment to make sure that everything it needs is there, or it doesn't continue.
There's great news for mobile users, since Outlook Web Access now fully and properly supports other browsers (such as Safari and Firefox) without forcing users to toe the Microsoft line. This has been a source of great frustration - you might only have IE installed in the office, but prefer to work with something else at home or when mobile. Those who lose their mobile phone can now remote wipe them direct from a browser, a great security benefit.
The built-in archiving is vastly improved, since instead of using local PST files, Exchange Server 2010 has server-side personal archives that just get moved along with the mailbox when needed.
Reliability is beefed up, not that this was an area lacking in Exchange Server 2007 to be honest - but it's good news nonetheless.
While on the surface it looks like there's been little change, those significant changes under the bonnet result in a product that's faster, cheaper to run, easier to manage, provides better access and is also more robust. If you're running Exchange - whatever version - this is very definitely a worthwhile update that's worth the time and money needed to deploy. A good product that's been made even better.
