Market
With nearly 60% of all Enterprises still running Exchange 2003 (depending on the resource) or earlier, the opportunities to help customers to move to Exchange 2010 abound. Many clients are looking to move to “The Cloud” and are looking for a SaaS model. While many clients would like to move to “The Cloud” most have integration into their existing Exchange environment from their VoiceMail system or other line of business applications which make the proposition of a move difficult to impossible. The enhanced capabilities of Exchange 2010 (specifically sp1) for E-Compliancy and use of inexpensive disk are further enticement for clients to move as well. We are in a unique position to help clients which are looking to upgrade their email systems yet do not fit the one-size-fit-all SaaS model as we can offer Co-Location, Replication, connectivity and expertise while leveraging our size for mid-size and enterprise customers.
E-Compliancy is the main reason customers would like to upgrade their Exchange systems. E-Compliancy falls into a few different realms:
1. They have to comply with a retention period mandated to them by a regulatory agency.
2. They are in a lawsuit where they have to restore data from months or years ago and have no good way to search said data.
3. They have all the backups, but have allowed local archives to be created and the archive PST files are spread everywhere in their network and devices.
4. They have disparate email systems and backup systems which are next to impossible to managed and comply with.
5. They have users which keep everything and either implementation of existing rules or creation of rules around email retention is politically impossible.
Compliancy: Whether you have to comply with SEC, FDA, HIIPA, SOX or external to U.S.A. regulations, the same principles apply. If you keep everything, you will have backup problems and potentially poor performance. If you delete everything or force archiving to the end-user to save space and backup cost, you can end up in a compliancy trap.
E-Compliancy has many competitors. EMC’s SourceOne, Symantec’s E-Vault (not a backup tool), Message Architect, and Messaging Solutions are all competitors. There are also external sources for limited E-compliancy such as MimeCast, Postini, and Microsoft as examples.
Journaling:
One form of compliancy is Journaling. Journaling allows the Email administrator, Legal, and HR to maintain a copy of all incoming, outgoing and internal emails of all users, a group of users, or based on a rule set defined by the company (think key words or file extensions). Most organizations have to comply with a 1, 5 or 7 year retention. If journaling isn’t in place a user can delete an email before its backed up or archive it out to another form of retention like a PST and outside of the IT department’s ability to comply thereby putting the organization at risk. Journaling is typically stored on a WORM(Write Once Read Many) drive which ensures no one can delete any data unless allowed by policy.
Journaling does not save the customer on storage costs, in fact it can dramatically increase those costs but this is a price to pay for compliancy. If the customer must comply by law…we can offer lower cost disk to blunt the effect. Inexpensive disk for Exchange was a problem until recently. Exchange 2010 can use SATA natively and EMC and NetApp offer disk shelves or whole units such as EMC’s Centera products to address these concerns in a high density, low cost disk array. Please don’t confuse production disk with Journaling disk. Exchange is still very I/O intensive. Some organization can use SATA in prod while others must use SAS or Fiber Disk.
Archiving:
One reason many organization have left PSTs in place is to keep the size of the Exchange DBs (Data Stores) smaller. Many more organization have also implemented size restrictions on users which have force them to archive to keep email they have wanted to keep. While this helps maintain a manageable size of email databases and allowed for timely backups and restores, it has also exacerbated the problem. Now email is on desktops, file shares, personal computers and can be a compliance nightmare. In the instance that PSTs are out of network drives, the cost savings of small data stores has actually been neutralized or perhaps made worse by flooding network shares with duplicitous data within those PSTs with no good method to de-dup. Any chance of a cost-effective backup, or discovery has been negated. Archiving in PSTs is the native form to archive in Outlook and cannot be eliminated completely due to POP3 and IMAP providers like FUSE, GMAIL, YAHOO, and legacy email services. We have an opportunity to help clients archive in a cost effective and centralized manner.
Archiving centrally was only possible until recently with SourceOne, E-Vault, Message Architect, and Messaging Solutions using 3rd party applications, external servers and external storage to the native Exchange Architecture. If PSTs are still in the environment and have to be pulled in one of these solutions would be a good choice. Exchange 2010 sp1 has also enabled archiving natively inside Exchange. Before Exchange 2010 there was no native option, and before SP1 you could only archive in the same DataStore. Exchange SP1 allows you to Archive within Exchange but to a different datastore on different storage (Fiber for Prod, SATA for Archive).
Gartner: E-Mail Archiving Software Revenue Market Share by Delivery, 2009
Archiving comes in different forms based on these products. The simplest is just moving data from one point to another. Exchange does this very well. The next method is called Stubbing. All email is 2 parts: 1. Message Header, 2. Data and Attachments. Stubbing leaves the message header in the Production Data Store and leaves a pointer to the Data in another location (Centera, Sata disk shelf, WORM drive). The upside of this stubbing is you can mix it in with your Journal to centralize and De-Dup. The down side is multiple touch points and added complexity. Analysis of the customers’ data, current compliancy issues, and PST situation can help to drive which 3rd party to use or to simply use the built in Exchange method. The archiving retention period and when to archive (x number of days after receiving a message) are up to the customer but recommended is 30 days.
No matter which version of Archiving product you use, it helps keep the production store small and unlike older archiving technology it keeps continuity for the client (either exact folder structure or similar PST style). Exchange native looks very similar to PSTs by having a different Archive mailbox underneath the Production; but unlike the PST method you can see it from all machines you use with Outlook 2010, including if you access through OWA. The other methods allow for a unified look but change the icon in Outlook and OWA. The time to pull those emails back will be slightly slower while it pulls from the alternative location.
E-Mail Archiving Software Product License, Maintenance and Hosted Solution Revenue and Forecast, 2008-2014 (Millions of Dollars)
|
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
CAGR (%) 2009-2014 |
|||||||
|
Revenue |
697.3 |
789.5 |
948.2 |
1,183.4 |
1,472.2 |
1,818.1 |
2,219.1 |
23.0 |
||||||
|
Growth (%) |
– |
13.2 |
20.1 |
24.8 |
24.4 |
23.5 |
22.1 |
– |
||||||
All Vendors listed in Supporting Documentation
SourceOne Look:
Exchange 2010 SP1 Native Look:
DR/BCP/Backup Options:
Having smaller production DBs resulting from archiving helps to backup production data stores. Archive DBs are also easy to replicate or snapshot changes for DR. Large DBs have traditionally been difficult to backup and even harder to restore. There are two traditional methods to backup Exchange Block level and Brick level. Block backed up the Database as a whole. Brick level backed up the mailboxes and individual mail items individually. Brick has always been easier to restore minor items (lost attachment) while Block is easier to restore a corrupt DB. I mention traditional methods simply to illustrate newer ways to keep Exchange up and running.
Current methodology for Exchange 2010 environment is less about backup and more about Business Continuity. Exchange 2010 is no able to replicate using Log Shipping the entire database inter-DC or to another site in their new DAG cluster functionality. Inter-site where you have high speeds you can do real time replication of Databases. The replication is done using log shipping which means if ServerA’s DB becomes corrupt; it doesn’t mean ServerB’s DB is corrupt. Both nodes can be set to Active/Active. You can also setup in an offsite a LAG server. This LAG server is part of the DAG group but it simply waits to write the Logs to the DB. Why is this important??? When (not if) you get a virus, it hasn’t written the logs on day zero. Not writing the logs allows you to rollup logs and run the LAG as production in the case the PROD DAG servers go down after your AV provider sends out an updated definition.
This continuous environment can also lend to easier restores in the event of an emergency. SAN technology which is Application Aware (EMC, NetApp) also allows for fast Snapshots and individual item restores. If the environment doesn’t have a hard requirement for keeping tape for X number of years, moving them to a snapshot, replication DR plan instead of tape is a huge cost savings. If they have also implemented Journaling, that Journal becomes your first and easiest method of restoring individual items. The whole concept of DR changes to BCP.
Business, Litigation and Compliancy Consulting:
We will come back to E-Compliancy for a moment. We have discussed Journaling, but we can help to consult on retention and deletion periods for both production email, archive, and backup. These items are more political and regulatory than technical. The technology is easy to implement but the drivers come from HR and Legal departments. We can help to drive this, but ultimately the decision is theirs. Try to focus on cost savings by implementing X days of archive, compliancy, and user experience.
The other part of E-Compliancy is those nasty PSTs. If you decide you want to ingest the client’s PST files you should be aware of the size considerations. If Exchange has been in the organization for a while and they have had small mailbox limits…the size of the PSTs can be unpredictable and large. A good number to assume is a multiple of the number of years Exchange has been in the environment. A company with a 10 year old Exchange environment with 200MB mailbox limits will probably have users with PSTs 10 to 20 times the size of their mailbox. So, expect users to have 2Gig or 4Gig PSTs ON AVERAGE.
PST ingestion is part of the SourceOne, E-Vault, and Messaging Architects suite. You will need extra servers to complete the ingestion which in a virtual environment can be spun up and down once the process is complete. They should go directly into the Archive and/or Journal so plan space accordingly and be prepared to have to purchase more disk. Once you have rolled out the tools, you can pull reports to gauge the size of the PSTs in the environment, but you probably can’t assume they are all part of the corporate email structure as they could be personal PSTs as well.
PST information in Supporting Documentation Section
Opportunity for Co-Lo and Service Providers
Again, we are in a unique position to help clients migrate to Exchange 2010 where we can benefit from selling them hardware (or Cloud space) software (Microsoft Enterprise or SPLA –Service Provider Licensing Agreement, VMWARE, etc) , networking (both internal to them and CBT services), migration services, datacenter space and management along with business and DR consulting. Exchange has a huge drag on multiple components and as most companies’ largest and complex environment it fits in to our Co-Lo Private/Hybrid Cloud pitch. If we land Exchange it’s our business to lose on the rest of their servers/services. If we land Exchange the Virtual Environment if built on hardware usually can handle an additional 40-80 server in a basic Exchange config, hundreds more in a larger config. If we land them in the Cloud we can pitch the ease of bill back and managed cost structures as they move in.
Managed Co-Lo Exchange and/or Private Cloud Exchange is a Win-Win for both Providers and our customers.
Supporting documentation:
Garnter:
Why PSTs Are Bad for E-Discovery
PSTs are essentially large compilations of individual e-mail messages. Best practices for ediscovery
would argue that no defendant would turn over all e-mails in PST files, as they may
contain confidential, privileged or downright damaging information that the defendant needs to
see before opposing counsel gets their hands on the data. In a typical e-discovery process that
includes PSTs:
• All PSTs for a particular custodian are collected from wherever they reside, usually on
the desktop, but often in other places as well. This is difficult.
• PSTs are then loaded into a processing engine, which would need to perform the
following functions:
• Deduplication
• Reconstituting PSTs into individual MSG files
• Handling any errors, data corruption and encryption
• Perform a search or other first cut of the data, using keyword, date range or other
criteria for each custodian and PST file
All of this is time-consuming and/or expensive, depending on whether it is done in-house or by an
outside e-discovery services firm.
Vendors:
Vendors to consider include those listed in the Gartner e-mail archiving
Magic Quadrant (see "Magic Quadrant for E-Mail Active Archiving"). Organizations that should
consider third-party best-of-breed archiving (e.g., Symantec, Autonomy and numerous others)
include those that:
• Would like to make use of their tiered storage environment, perhaps including SAN,
network-attached storage (NAS) and purpose-built archival storage to manage their
Exchange data
• Would like to archive multiple content types using a single solution, taking advantage of
features like single-instance storage across content types
• Need a more mature, feature-rich application for policy-based retention and compliance
supervision for e-mail
• Have distinct e-discovery requirements that can’t be met by Exchange 2010
• Want to manage multiple and different types of e-mail applications using the same
product
Microsoft’s Support for Existing E-Mail Archiving Vendors
The Exchange e-mail archiving market is crowded and mature, but archiving has not been widely
deployed, and the opportunity for growth is significant. Microsoft has supported this market
through a solid partner ecosystem comprised of vendors, most of which use shortcuts/pointers to
support tiered storage, and will continue to do so.
Archiving Growth:
E-mail archiving solutions have been available for many years, but are not yet widely
deployed. The market remains strong; e-mail archiving continues to be among the
fastest-growing segments of the storage software market (see "Dataquest Insight: E-Mail
Archiving Software Market, Worldwide, 2009").
E-mail archiving products have been available for more than a decade. The products on the
market today have evolved to meet customer requirements in two general areas: cost
containment/reduction for large mail stores, and support for compliance and e-discovery
requirements and policies. The market is forecast to grow at a five-year compound annual growth
rate of 21.2%, to $1.23 billion in 2013.
Market Trends: E-Mail Archiving Strong Growth Continues
Alan Dayley, Sheila Childs
The e-mail archiving software market saw 13.2% year-over-year growth in 2009. Although this is down from the 2008 growth rate of 25.7%, e-mail archiving is still among the fastest-growing segments of the software market. While the economic recovery and the success of service providers will impact future growth, hosted solutions and improved offerings from the large on-premises e-mail archiving software vendors should help boost growth of 23.0% through 2014.
Key Findings
The e-mail archiving software product market grew 13.2% in 2009 to reach $790 million in combined license and maintenance service revenue, including hosted solutions.
The market is forecast to reach $2.22 billion by 2014, reflecting a five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 23.0%. Traditional compliance, governance, retention mailbox management and data reduction requirements are positives for market growth. Also impacting growth are the economic environment and pricing pressure from increased competition.
Delivering an archiving platform that can archive e-mail and files is increasingly becoming a requirement. SharePoint archiving is also being asked for and will become a higher priority in the future. Gartner is tracking products that support this integrated approach as enterprise information archiving (or EIA).
E-discovery tools are in growing demand, and minimal e-discovery functionality has become a requirement for e-mail archiving products.
The market for cloud (software as a service [SaaS]) archiving is growing more rapidly than for on-premises; end-users are increasingly including both cloud and on-premises vendors in their shortlists.
Recommendations
Vendors’ product teams need to continue to improve existing e-discovery tools and provide links into industry-leading e-discovery providers.
With increased competition, vendors’ product management and marketing teams must put more focus on timely product delivery and increase the effectiveness of their marketing and channel development programs.
Archiving on-premises and SaaS providers both need to deliver product offerings that are easy to deploy and provide seamless user interfaces to have a competitive advantage in the increasing competition for sales.
Archiving vendors’ product teams need to ensure their offering has a cloud strategy that could include providing a native hosted/SaaS option or support for architectures that can be deployed by managed service providers.
|
Vendor |
Revenue ($M) 2008 |
Share (%) 2008 |
Revenue ($M) 2009 |
Share (%) 2009 |
Growth (%) 2008-2009 |
||||
|
Autonomy |
158.7 |
22.8 |
187.5 |
23.7 |
18.1 |
||||
|
Symantec |
168.8 |
24.2 |
167.6 |
21.2 |
-0.7 |
||||
|
Iron Mountain-Mimosa |
60.2 |
8.6 |
59.4 |
7.5 |
-1.3 |
||||
|
IBM |
44.3 |
6.4 |
50.5 |
6.4 |
14.0 |
||||
|
EMC |
37.9 |
5.4 |
40.9 |
5.2 |
7.9 |
||||
|
LiveOffice |
22.4 |
3.2 |
26.1 |
3.3 |
16.5 |
||||
|
CommVault |
18.3 |
2.6 |
21.7 |
2.7 |
18.6 |
||||
|
Open Text |
18.0 |
2.6 |
20.0 |
2.5 |
11.1 |
||||
|
Proofpoint |
15.0 |
2.2 |
20.0 |
2.5 |
33.3 |
||||
|
Mimecast |
10.5 |
1.5 |
18.9 |
2.4 |
80.0 |
||||
|
Waterford |
14.0 |
2.0 |
16.0 |
2.0 |
14.3 |
||||
|
Global Relay |
12.4 |
1.8 |
15.5 |
2.0 |
25.0 |
||||
|
CA Technologies* |
11.5 |
1.6 |
13.8 |
1.7 |
20.0 |
||||
|
Quest |
13.6 |
2.0 |
13.1 |
1.7 |
-3.7 |
||||
|
Daegis |
10.7 |
1.5 |
12.0 |
1.5 |
12.1 |
||||
|
Messaging Architects |
11.0 |
1.6 |
11.0 |
1.4 |
0.0 |
||||
|
Smarsh |
8.0 |
1.1 |
10.9 |
1.4 |
36.3 |
||||
|
Others |
62.0 |
8.9 |
84.6 |
10.7 |
36.5 |
||||
|
Total |
697.3 |
100.0 |
789.5 |
100.0 |
13.2 |
||||
Market Accelerators:
· A holistic retention approach through enterprise information archiving is being adopted, with various forms of archiving, including e-mail, file and database.
· An increased focus on records retention worldwide has forced organizations to evaluate their e-mail retention policies.
· E-discovery requests, preparation to respond per the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the resources required to find dispersed data continue to drive companies to look to archiving solutions.
· Mailbox management continues to be a pain point for companies because users still use e-mail as their document retention system.
· Availability of cloud-based solutions and the suitability of e-mail archives as an application that can effectively be moved to the cloud are causing organizations to evaluate this as a simple and cost-effective solution for mailbox management and e-mail e-discovery.
· New solutions continue to enter the market, increasing awareness of the availability of archiving as a solution to management and e-discovery problems. Note that each new vendor makes the competition for prospective dollars and sales channels more difficult.
· The availability of archiving in Microsoft Exchange 2010 raises awareness and further advances acceptance of this technology.
· Unified messaging and nascent corporate acceptance of social networking is putting voice mail and other kinds of communications into the e-mail data store, increasing the management problem.
· E-mail system upgrades and migrations are encouraging companies to archive before migration.
Market Inhibitors
Market inhibitors are as follows:
· When archiving is driven by legal or compliance groups, the desire to categorize each e-mail sets unrealistic goals that often delay implementations or result in false starts and discouraging failures. In some cases, decisions are delayed while policies are defined.
· Legal requirements for retention and legal action are not as strong in many geographies as in the United States and could be a somewhat limited influence for e-mail archiving. However, this is counteracted by the use of archiving as a tool for compliance, auditing and even privacy requirements in these geographies.
Microsoft Support Matrix:
|
Notes |
|||||
|
Exchange Server 2003 Enterprise Edition |
9/28/2003 |
4/14/2009 |
4/8/2014 |
5/25/2005 |
|
|
Exchange Server 2003 Service Pack 1 |
5/25/2004 |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
1/8/2008 |
|
|
Exchange Server 2003 Service Pack 2 |
10/19/2005 |
Review Note |
Review Note |
Support ends 12 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product’s support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport . |
|
|
Exchange Server 2003 Standard Edition |
9/28/2003 |
4/14/2009 |
4/8/2014 |
5/25/2005 |
|
Notes |
|||||
|
Exchange 2000 Conferencing Server |
11/29/2000 |
1/12/2010 |
1/13/2015 |
||
|
Exchange 2000 Conferencing Server Service Pack 1 |
6/21/2001 |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
6/30/2002 |
|
|
Exchange 2000 Conferencing Server Service Pack 2 |
11/19/2001 |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
3/21/2004 |
|
|
Exchange 2000 Conferencing Server Service Pack 3 |
3/21/2003 |
Review Note |
Review Note |
Support ends 12 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product’s support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport . |
|
|
Exchange 2000 Enterprise Server |
11/29/2000 |
12/31/2005 |
1/11/2011 |
||
|
Exchange 2000 Server Service Pack 2 |
11/29/2001 |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
10/18/2002 |
|
|
Exchange 2000 Server Standard Edition |
11/29/2000 |
12/31/2005 |
1/11/2011 |
||
|
Exchange Server 2000 Service Pack 1 |
6/21/2001 |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
2/28/2002 |
|
|
Exchange Server 2000 Service Pack 3 |
7/18/2002 |
Review Note |
Review Note |
Support ends 12 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product’s support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport . |
|
Notes |
|||||
|
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 |
3/30/2005 |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
4/14/2009 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 for Itanium-based Systems |
5/13/2005 |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
4/14/2009 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 |
3/13/2007 |
Review Note |
Review Note |
Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product’s support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport . |
|
|
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 for Itanium-based Systems |
3/13/2007 |
Review Note |
Review Note |
Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product’s support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport . |
|
|
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 x64 Edition |
3/13/2007 |
Review Note |
Review Note |
Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product’s support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport . |
|
|
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition (32-bit x86) |
5/28/2003 |
7/13/2010 |
7/14/2015 |
4/10/2007 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition for Itanium-Based Systems |
6/19/2003 |
7/13/2010 |
7/14/2015 |
4/10/2007 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter x64 Edition |
5/28/2005 |
7/13/2010 |
7/14/2015 |
4/14/2009 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition (32-bit x86) |
5/28/2003 |
7/13/2010 |
7/14/2015 |
4/10/2007 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition for Itanium-based Systems |
6/19/2003 |
7/13/2010 |
7/14/2015 |
4/10/2007 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise x64 Edition |
5/28/2005 |
7/13/2010 |
7/14/2015 |
4/14/2009 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition (32-bit x86) |
5/28/2003 |
7/13/2010 |
7/14/2015 |
4/10/2007 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition |
5/28/2005 |
7/13/2010 |
7/14/2015 |
4/14/2009 |
|
|
Windows Server 2003, Web Edition |
5/28/2003 |
7/13/2010 |
7/14/2015 |
4/10/2007 |
davespiess 