Exchange server Implemenetation Analysis
-
What do you gain by putting it in Site C over Site A? If it really needs to be in Site C why can't you transfer the Schema Master role to that location (not physically move the server, transfer the role)
-
That seems like an odd requirement, unless it's to ensure there aren't time/lag issues between where you are and where the schema master is when extending the schema.
@thecreativeone91 definitely has a solution for you.
- transfer the role to a DC local to Site C, extend the schema, transfer it back.
- extend the schema from a server that is local to Site A (i.e. download Exchange ISO to a server there, and run the commands, etc.
You've already mentioned option 2, and personally, that's the way I'd do it.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
What do you gain by putting it in Site C over Site A? If it really needs to be in Site C why can't you transfer the Schema Master role to that location (not physically move the server, transfer the role)
If I had to guess - I'd say that Site C is where most of the users are, but that's only a guess.
-
Why are you looking at having Exchange in house? That should be an extremely rare thing today. There are unique cases where it still makes sense but generally that is only very large firms with extremely special needs, massive amount of Exchange expertise (that you have questions at all about it flags your firm as not really being a candidate to have it be in house) with specific regulations making it necessary.
There is just no way to run Exchange in house anywhere near as well as Microsoft runs it themselves.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Why are you looking at having Exchange in house? That should be an extremely rare thing today. There are unique cases where it still makes sense but generally that is only very large firms with extremely special needs, massive amount of Exchange expertise (that you have questions at all about it flags your firm as not really being a candidate to have it be in house) with specific regulations making it necessary.
There is just no way to run Exchange in house anywhere near as well as Microsoft runs it themselves.
That might be the case, but not everyone has reliable Internet connections in their area or the bandwidth to make it viable.
Hosted email isn't automatically better and not everyone wants their data hosted by someone else. Managerial bods can be quite linear in their thinking (yes, this is bad) and handling of IT... BUT most can be convinced with compelling business cases. Not all. Some just like to be large n in charge <insert watch the world burn meme> -
@nadnerB said:
That might be the case, but not everyone has reliable Internet connections in their area or the bandwidth to make it viable.
In most cases, however, wouldn't bad bandwidth and unreliable Internet be reasons that you would want your external communications to be fast and reliable and provide for the ability to be accessed when your network is down?
Bad bandwidth and unreliable networks are actually reasons for companies to look even more seriously at hosted. Hosted will, in most of those cases, be a solution, rather than a problem.
-
@nadnerB said:
Hosted email isn't automatically better and not everyone wants their data hosted by someone else.
Not automatically, but essentially. SMBs have no practical means to even remotely compete with the security, reliability and low cost of hosted enterprise email and once you go to Exchange rather than generic email you've moved even farther into that camp. The only way to get value hosting internally is to cut extreme corners (in cases where email is not deemed important) or have extremely niche needs that are not addressed by the hosting firms of this it is almost exclusively artificial government constraints.
-
This is the go to argument for hosted almost anything. You can't have as clean of power, as reliable of internet services, unchanging of environment variables. And that's all true.
But an SMB needs what for realistic uptime, 99%, even less? Let's assume 99%. That gives you 3.5 days of total down time a year.
While totally undesirable, the small businesses I've supported in the past could all survive these types of outages (and most have survived 4+ hour outages) with barely a blip, if even a blip, to their bottom line.
Back when SBS was popular for small shops (popular might not be the correct term) a company that needed a server for file services could easily have their own internally hosted email server for a pretty reasonable price. Sure they could have had a linux server and email for a lot less, but that's another discussion.
Remember that we already have to have hardware in place to run a file server, so adding a bit more to support OK performance on SBS was minimal. The cost of this server and required licensing would be generally paid for in under 3 years compared to the cost of O365 (assuming $5/month/user).
I had several clients that did exactly that, and they had way less than 3.5 days of down time a year. I'd venture they had well below 1 day of downtime a year.
To mitigate the appearance of local outages the SMB can purchase outside Spam/virus filtering that will receive incoming email regardless of your systems status, and hold it until you come back online. This does cost around $1/month/user.
While I do in general agree today that it's not worth setting up your own Exchange Server today if you want Exchange, but considering the needs and the costs I don't consider it outside the realm of possibilities.
I know Scott is going to rip this to shreds saying something about the time value of money, and the lack of need for support locally for email, etc.
-
We've looked at hosting Exchange with Rackspace or Office 365 even for our 10,000+ users.
Right now we have them inhouse. We might keep them one of the main reasons to switch for us would actually be office, rather than email itself for us (but if we switch it will be both) As we start designing our processes for the technicians to use around using OEM windows keys rather than imaging and using VLKs. We design our most of our software in house (aside from Office, Windows and AutoCAD, Visual Studio) meaning that we could script and use Group Policy for most of our stuff without the need for imaging. -
@nadnerB said:
That might be the case, but not everyone has reliable Internet connections in their area or the bandwidth to make it viable.
Hosted email isn't automatically better and not everyone wants their data hosted by someone else. Managerial bods can be quite linear in their thinking (yes, this is bad) and handling of IT... BUT most can be convinced with compelling business cases. Not all. Some just like to be large n in charge <insert watch the world burn meme>You need reliable internet connections either way, how else do you send emails out side the organization, it become more important when it's internal (there's only one way to get to the server, through that connection). If you mean you can send large files over it internally then they should be using an internal file server or FTP not email.
-
I agree Dash. In the last 3 years, since I rolled out Exchange 2010, I don't think I've had any downtime during working hours at all. Zero. I've had some planned downtime at the weekends/evenings when I've done reboots, but that's it.
Meanwhile, @scottalanmiller always seems to be posting on here that O365 is experiencing problems. It doesn't sound that reliable at all to me. It certainly doesn't seem obvious that hosted is more reliable than on-premise.
As for cost. I haven't worked it out recently, but I believe licence costs have worked out lower than subscription costs over 3 years. As for the time value of money, keen followers of my posts will probably know by now that I am an extremely lazy systems administrator. I do nothing with Exchange, it just sits there. Rightly, or wrongly, my time investment is practically zero. We also use filtering services to mitigate downtime as Dash suggested. Of course, I may just have been lucky.
That leaves security. I don't know. Our Exchange server is exposed to the internet, so is threatened, but I block OWA and ActiveSync for the majority of users. My fears with O365 security relate to compromised passwords.
I'm moving to O365 this year, but that's partly because of all the other products and services it offers. I'm not sure I migrate if it was just for hosted Exchange.
-
@Dashrender said:
Remember that we already have to have hardware in place to run a file server, so adding a bit more to support OK performance on SBS was minimal. The cost of this server and required licensing would be generally paid for in under 3 years compared to the cost of O365 (assuming $5/month/user).
$4/user/month. 25% extra is a lot to add on. $4 for Exchange, $1 for non-Exchange (Rackspace.)
Considering that you need things like spam filtering and anti-virus, normally hosted and typically for around $2/month, the cost of hosted email is really cheap. Remember you need storage, backups, IT time, etc. for that in house stuff too.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
My fears with O365 security relate to compromised passwords.
In what way are you more afraid of the O365 passwords than the on premises ones? Is this because the on premises users can't access their mail from the outside at all? So on is purely an internal service and one is more than that?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Meanwhile, @scottalanmiller always seems to be posting on here that O365 is experiencing problems. It doesn't sound that reliable at all to me. It certainly doesn't seem obvious that hosted is more reliable than on-premise.
My experience in large enterprises throwing huge money at on premises Exchange has had even more outages, though. I just don't mention those. O365 has very visible, talked about outages. On premises no one mentions to other people, but it goes down all the time. Even in the Fortune 10 where there is so much money and 24x7 staff thrown at the problem, they go down more often than the big hosting providers.
-
Where are those prices? Everything I see for O365 is $5 and my customer who moved to Rackspace through NTG is being charged $2/user/month (and they don't have active sync).
I mentioned that we are getting filtering at $1 a month, perhaps a bit more (I think I'm currently paying $55/month for 50 users).
As for backups, I need that for my file server anyhow - so adding Exchange support does at a bit of cost, but not an outlandish amount.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Meanwhile, @scottalanmiller always seems to be posting on here that O365 is experiencing problems. It doesn't sound that reliable at all to me. It certainly doesn't seem obvious that hosted is more reliable than on-premise.
My experience in large enterprises throwing huge money at on premises Exchange has had even more outages, though. I just don't mention those. O365 has very visible, talked about outages. On premises no one mentions to other people, but it goes down all the time. Even in the Fortune 10 where there is so much money and 24x7 staff thrown at the problem, they go down more often than the big hosting providers.
Scott's not wrong here - I know several of the large Exchange installs around town seem to have more outages than I hear about O365 having (or at least used to a few years ago - I haven't heard lately).
-
@Dashrender said:
Where are those prices? Everything I see for O365 is $5 and my customer who moved to Rackspace through NTG is being charged $2/user/month (and they don't have active sync).
O365 Hosted Exchange has been $4 for years. We post about it constantly. It's never been anything but $4. That's the price it started at, that's the price it remains.
https://products.office.com/en-us/exchange/exchange-online
-
I'm not aware of any "just Exchange" plan from Office 365 that is available in any price except $4. There is nothing cheaper and nothing more expensive. I don't believe that there is any other plan for Exchange. Everything at a higher price point is part of a bundle.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
My fears with O365 security relate to compromised passwords.
In what way are you more afraid of the O365 passwords than the on premises ones? Is this because the on premises users can't access their mail from the outside at all? So on is purely an internal service and one is more than that?
Exactly. I only give remote access to those that require it. It's a fairly crude and trivial layer of security, but all the same I have some fears about giving all staff remote access to our data.
-
@Dashrender said:
Scott's not wrong here - I know several of the large Exchange installs around town seem to have more outages than I hear about O365 having (or at least used to a few years ago - I haven't heard lately).
Something I've noticed a lot, and I'm assuming that it is true, is that large environments tend to have more, smaller outages and smaller environments have fewer, bigger ones. So in a Fortune 100, I expect to see email blips of minutes or maybe hours every year or two, much like with Office 365. With an SMB it tends to be five to ten years of nothing then an epic outage of many hours or a day or two.
Much like consumer lines (huge volume) vs. leased lines (tiny volume.) Leased lines feel very reliable because you often go a decade without losing a packet. But then getting an outage of a week or even a month is common enough that I know first hand many places going into the months for a leased line outage. But generally only after many, many years of nothing.
