Google Agrees Domino Uptime is Better Than Exchange
Category Administration IBM/Lotus Domino
Google is showing a chart of messaging uptime that I find very interesting. The source of the data is the Radacati Group, and shows that Exchange has more downtime than Domino. I don't recall Radicati ever identifying a positive trait of IBM/Lotus Domino, so I'm willing to accept these numbers.
The next question is whether or not Google Apps is a more robust choice for messaging, with a reasonable cost. In my own experience, my company's recent analysis showed that our internal use of a SAN was cheaper than the Google hosting. Our uptime is very high, and the servers are fully clustered (across different data centers), so there is never any mail interruption.
Still, I think the chart summary is a worthwhile reference point.
Vowe.net has noted that my comment about Radicati is "flawed" because it seems I'm only accepting numbers that I find believable, rather than relying on the facts as they are presented. At least, that's how I understand his statement.
Well, if my words suggest I only adhere to statistics which agree with my world-view, then he is right to call them into question. It's not what I meant to intend.
For the record, I view ALL statistics with suspicion, which is why I run so many system reports and logs. I also enjoy the give-and-take of the blogging community to call someone out when the topic has merit.
In the example of Domino uptime, my blog entry was headlined by Google's acceptance of the values, not Radicati's summary from which they drew their information. Blog entries are tough to write, because they are so short. I often don't get to say everything I want to say, and there are many, many things that I want to avoid intimating. Sometimes, I just give up on trying to make an entry, because there is no way to avoid a long essay, and that's not really about blogging at its core. Now, about the Radicati Group.
Let me start by noting that the Radicati Group famously foresaw the downfall of blogging as soon "no longer a credible source of news." It's hard to miss the irony that the Google citation I reference, is actually a blog entry, itself. In any case, as to Radicati, they have published many studies on the cost-effectiveness of Microsoft Exchange.
For instance, in their 2003 study, they concluded:
I've never disagreed with their statistics, but I have found their analysis a troubling simplification of messaging's complexity. I've disagreed in previous posts, that Radicati doesn't really match up IBM/Lotus Domino against the full costs of maintaining Microsoft Exchange .
However, while I never said their statistics are wrong, now I just might. How is it possible to say that Exchange 2003 has an advantage in downtime, but five years later cede that Domino has better uptime than Exchange? Over time has Domino improved it's uptime, beyond the capabilities of Exchange ? I've never read anything from the Radicati Group which suggested such a transition.
It's fair to say, I believe, that they have a reputation, which is respected, but also known to be more aligned with Microsoft than with competing vendors. So, when I read the Google quote, I was surprised. On a closer look, I still am.
Technorati Tags: IBM/Lotus Domino, Radicati
Google is showing a chart of messaging uptime that I find very interesting. The source of the data is the Radacati Group, and shows that Exchange has more downtime than Domino. I don't recall Radicati ever identifying a positive trait of IBM/Lotus Domino, so I'm willing to accept these numbers.
The next question is whether or not Google Apps is a more robust choice for messaging, with a reasonable cost. In my own experience, my company's recent analysis showed that our internal use of a SAN was cheaper than the Google hosting. Our uptime is very high, and the servers are fully clustered (across different data centers), so there is never any mail interruption.
Still, I think the chart summary is a worthwhile reference point.
Vowe.net has noted that my comment about Radicati is "flawed" because it seems I'm only accepting numbers that I find believable, rather than relying on the facts as they are presented. At least, that's how I understand his statement.
Well, if my words suggest I only adhere to statistics which agree with my world-view, then he is right to call them into question. It's not what I meant to intend.
For the record, I view ALL statistics with suspicion, which is why I run so many system reports and logs. I also enjoy the give-and-take of the blogging community to call someone out when the topic has merit.
In the example of Domino uptime, my blog entry was headlined by Google's acceptance of the values, not Radicati's summary from which they drew their information. Blog entries are tough to write, because they are so short. I often don't get to say everything I want to say, and there are many, many things that I want to avoid intimating. Sometimes, I just give up on trying to make an entry, because there is no way to avoid a long essay, and that's not really about blogging at its core. Now, about the Radicati Group.
Let me start by noting that the Radicati Group famously foresaw the downfall of blogging as soon "no longer a credible source of news." It's hard to miss the irony that the Google citation I reference, is actually a blog entry, itself. In any case, as to Radicati, they have published many studies on the cost-effectiveness of Microsoft Exchange.
For instance, in their 2003 study, they concluded:
This TCO study shows that Microsoft Exchange 2003 offers a significant TCO advantage over IBM Lotus Software Notes/Domino 6 (ND6), on the order of 41%. There are cost advantages in a number of key areas, including downtime and training.
I've never disagreed with their statistics, but I have found their analysis a troubling simplification of messaging's complexity. I've disagreed in previous posts, that Radicati doesn't really match up IBM/Lotus Domino against the full costs of maintaining Microsoft Exchange .
However, while I never said their statistics are wrong, now I just might. How is it possible to say that Exchange 2003 has an advantage in downtime, but five years later cede that Domino has better uptime than Exchange? Over time has Domino improved it's uptime, beyond the capabilities of Exchange ? I've never read anything from the Radicati Group which suggested such a transition.
It's fair to say, I believe, that they have a reputation, which is respected, but also known to be more aligned with Microsoft than with competing vendors. So, when I read the Google quote, I was surprised. On a closer look, I still am.
Technorati Tags: IBM/Lotus Domino, Radicati
- 
