Great Technical Review on Archiving Misses Domino
Category Administration IBM/Lotus Domino
NetworkWorld's review of archiving solutions bypasses Domino's unique capabilities. Here's what was missed. Logan Harbaugh provides a comprehensive, even impressive, overview of the nuances involved in messaging archiving that relies on third-party tools. Unfortunately, the review is limited to Microsoft Exchange, and I thought rather than lambast Mr. Harbaugh for his ommission, I would point out some archiving distinctions between Exchange and Domino. After all, in the Domino architecture, archiving isn't relegated to expensive add-ons.
Exchange has no native provision for server-side archiving that could be described as on-line, near-term storage. Exchange does support archiving, but it is achieved through the client (which Lotus Notes also includes). This means that the archive files are created as PSTs and can only be placed on a mapped network drive, or rely on local storage.
An Exchange archive file would not be exposed to OWA for web access, could not be shared by multiple users, and the storage requirements would be significantly greater. After all, on a file server holding hundreds or thousands of Exchange archives, there would not be any single-store retention for attachments that are common between the archives. This last point is interesting, because reducing storage resources is one of the rationalizations for implementing archiving. Harbaugh acknowledges that, "the driving purpose is decreasing the space used on the Exchange server."
Domino, on the other hand, fully supports a feature known as Server Side Archiving, which transfers documents from the primary mail file, to another instance on a second Domino server, which has been re-purposed for archiving. It works well, and it allows a cheaper server, with less-expensive storage to be used. The archive server is accessed less frequently, and doesn't require the same server resources for indexing and running agents.
So, just think about the differences between out-of-the-box archiving for Exchange and Domino:
With all this appreciation for Domino's SSA, there are some pain points to consider. First, the IBM/Lotus SSA solution is not about e-discovery or meeting document-retention compliance. SOX, HIPAA, et al., will require more investment than what Domino gives as a standard feature. And, there are some rough spots with SSA when it comes to mixing iNotes and Policies. IBM is considering a complete redress of SSA and iNotes with the final release of Domino 8.5. This is increasingly important, because there is always a percentage of users who only rely on iNotes, and never reach for a desktop Notes client.
Looking over at archiving for Exchange and Domino, I'm right back at the root justification for archiving: storage. Domino SSA is a tremendous bargain for reducing storage costs and still providing 24x7 access for an expansive range of clients.
Technorati Tags: DAOS, Microsoft Exchange, IBM/Lotus Domino, Archiving
NetworkWorld's review of archiving solutions bypasses Domino's unique capabilities. Here's what was missed. Logan Harbaugh provides a comprehensive, even impressive, overview of the nuances involved in messaging archiving that relies on third-party tools. Unfortunately, the review is limited to Microsoft Exchange, and I thought rather than lambast Mr. Harbaugh for his ommission, I would point out some archiving distinctions between Exchange and Domino. After all, in the Domino architecture, archiving isn't relegated to expensive add-ons.
Exchange has no native provision for server-side archiving that could be described as on-line, near-term storage. Exchange does support archiving, but it is achieved through the client (which Lotus Notes also includes). This means that the archive files are created as PSTs and can only be placed on a mapped network drive, or rely on local storage.
An Exchange archive file would not be exposed to OWA for web access, could not be shared by multiple users, and the storage requirements would be significantly greater. After all, on a file server holding hundreds or thousands of Exchange archives, there would not be any single-store retention for attachments that are common between the archives. This last point is interesting, because reducing storage resources is one of the rationalizations for implementing archiving. Harbaugh acknowledges that, "the driving purpose is decreasing the space used on the Exchange server."
Domino, on the other hand, fully supports a feature known as Server Side Archiving, which transfers documents from the primary mail file, to another instance on a second Domino server, which has been re-purposed for archiving. It works well, and it allows a cheaper server, with less-expensive storage to be used. The archive server is accessed less frequently, and doesn't require the same server resources for indexing and running agents.
So, just think about the differences between out-of-the-box archiving for Exchange and Domino:
- Both systems support client archiving.
- Domino supports Server Side Archiving (SSA).
- SSA can be configured by Domino Policies, and applied to large groups at once.
- SSA can also allow individual users to configure their own criteria.
- Domino archiving supports web access (the iNotes interface has a link for the archive, and allows some configuration from iNotes).
- Domino supports a mix of client OS, so the archive is equally accessible from a Windows, as a Linux or a Macintosh client.
- Domino allows mail files, and their server archives, to be accessed by multiple accounts. It's possible for a senior executive to delegate archive access to any number of staff.
- Domino archives can be accessed by POP3, IMAP4, even RSS (I don't know why someone would do it, but it's possible).
- Finally, Domino supports using mixed releases of clients and servers. So, the archive server could be 8.5, and take advantage of compression for documents, design elements and Domino Attachment and Object Service (DAOS).
With all this appreciation for Domino's SSA, there are some pain points to consider. First, the IBM/Lotus SSA solution is not about e-discovery or meeting document-retention compliance. SOX, HIPAA, et al., will require more investment than what Domino gives as a standard feature. And, there are some rough spots with SSA when it comes to mixing iNotes and Policies. IBM is considering a complete redress of SSA and iNotes with the final release of Domino 8.5. This is increasingly important, because there is always a percentage of users who only rely on iNotes, and never reach for a desktop Notes client.
Looking over at archiving for Exchange and Domino, I'm right back at the root justification for archiving: storage. Domino SSA is a tremendous bargain for reducing storage costs and still providing 24x7 access for an expansive range of clients.
Technorati Tags: DAOS, Microsoft Exchange, IBM/Lotus Domino, Archiving
- 
