Unlike previous versions of Windows, Windows Server 2008 does not include a backup utility that supports the Exchange ESE streaming backup APIs. The Windows 2008 backup application, Windows Server Backup, cannot be used to take backups of Exchange.
Exchange still includes the ESE streaming backup APIs, but the absence of an Exchange-aware backup application in Windows may come as a surprise to many. Another change we made that may also affect you is the removal of remote streaming backup support on Windows 2008.
This leaves you with two choices for taking Exchange-aware online backups when running Exchange 2007 SP1 on Windows 2008:
1. Move to a Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS)-based backup application. You can use Microsoft System Center Data Protection Manager (DPM) 2007 or a third-party backup application that supports Exchange-aware VSS-based backups of Exchange 2007 SP1 on Windows Server 2008.
[...]
2. Use a Third-Party application that supports ESE streaming backups using a local backup agent on the Exchange server.
By itself, that's mildly annoying - Microsoft is now pushing its own backup solution, so it's purposefully crippling Windows Server Backup, or, alternatively, purposefully crippling Exchange so it doesn't properly work with it. Either way, this is annoying, but not terribly fatal. What is, however, is this gem:
Known Incompatibilities
One known Exchange-related incompatibility with Windows Server 2008 is the downloadable Messaging API Client and Collaboration Data Objects 1.2.1 package. Currently this tools package operates on Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP. We're working on validating these tools against Windows Server 2008 and expect to have an updated version released.
Why is this important? Because this package is required for Symantec's Backup Exec to back up an Exchange 2007 server, that's why. In other words, the one library necessary for one of the most popular third-party tools to back up an Exchange 2007 server on Microsoft's brand new server operating system doesn't work, making Microsoft's backup solution the de facto viable backup solution.
Nice. Very nice.
It's because of things like this that I'm starting to take a very serious look at Exchange alternatives. After all, let's take a look at where we're at with Exchange 2007:
1. It only runs on an x64 version of Windows Server. Most of the servers I maintain don't already have that, and there's no in-place way to upgrade them.
2. Exchange 2007 requires insane amounts of RAM (at least 4 GB). This means that Exchange is going to have to sit on a dedicated box. I am curious to see how they plan on pulling off a new version of Small Business Server with this thing.
3. Successfully administering Exchange 2007 requires mastering the PowerShell, since the GUI console is purposefully neutered.
4. .NET 2.0 and Exchange 2007 are incompatible with .NET 1.1, meaning that servers running .NET 1.1 apps (i.e. Sage Timberline Server and ACCPAC, among other things) can't be on the same box as Exchange, even if there was an x64 compatible version of those server apps.
So, it has to run on a new operating system on a dedicated box, has to be administered from a command line, and requires me to spend time and energy learning an entirely new way of administering my servers... what's stopping me, exactly, from finding a cheaper proven Linux-based alternative, exactly?
It's funny - if Microsoft just kept bolting new things on to the Exchange 2000/2003 core, I wouldn't even be talking about this. I mean, they used the same interface and the same basic methods of backing up and administering Exchange servers for the better part of seven years. Everyone knew how to handle Exchange 2000/2003... or, at least, anybody that cared did. Now Microsoft is tossing out all of that built-in knowledge and inertia. How can this possibly benefit them? If anything, I would think they'd try to keep things as close to "safe and comfortable" as possible so techs like me don't start getting ideas about trying the competition.
Goes to show what I know, eh?
2 comments:
ok, I'll bite...
I don't like the lack of a native NTBackup in Windows 2008 that is Exchange aware, either. Smaller customers who depend on that will have to just stick with Windows 2003. There is no requirement to move to 2008.
1) Concerns about 64-bit being inaccessible disappeared a couple of years ago. Moving to 64-bit is a good thing, and I was a skeptic initially. 64-bit capability has been ubiquitous for awhile now.
2) Insane? My laptop runs 4GB of RAM. What's insane about that? I had 4GB in Windows server RAM in the 90s, and used 2GB for Exchange 2000/2003.
3) Purposefully neutered? It definitely had some missing administrative functionality that we were used to in previous versions, such as POP/IMAP and Public Folders. They added a lot back into the GUI for sp1. In addition, mastery of Powershell is not necessary at all. Some basic knowledge might be, depending on what needs to be accomplished. Thankfully, it is much simpler than any other scripting language for administration coming out of Redmond, I actually forget I can use the GUI sometimes. Basic powershell is an easy learn. Get-ExCommand for the list of Exchange cmdlets. Help is comprehensive therein.
4) Yes, this .net framework incompatability is correct. But, do people actually run accounting applications on their Exchange servers? Well, virtualization support is coming with Windows 2008 and Hyper-V. Then you'll be able to run Exchange and your accounting applications on the same physical server, but with different operating system instances. Some people are doing so now with VMWare.
Thankfully, with the mid-level offering coming of Microsoft Essential Business Server, I won't even consider an SBS solution again. Takes 3 boxes, though: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/ServerSolutions/businessserver.mspx
The jump from Exchange 5.5 to 2000 I think was bigger than going from 2003 to 2007. Active Directory was a big challenge for some.
Overall, I don't think Microsoft is afraid of the competition in the messaging space. Aware of certainly, but hardly afraid. Exchange often comes out ahead of even their Linux wannabes. Zimbra for example carries a lower licensing fee, but must be paid anually. Add that to your anual Red Hat license fee and it adds up quickly. Exchange is a one time hit. But there are others, of course - Scalix, PostPath, Kerio. Best of luck. If you do not need the full feature set offered by Exchange 2007, then I would recommend alternatives, as I do for my customers.
There's no requirement to move to Windows 2008 now. There will be if anybody wants to buy a new server a year or two from now - I doubt Microsoft is going to be offering both Server 2003 and Server 2008 for over a year like they are with XP and Vista. Since servers do wear out after a while, this is increasingly going to become an issue. Hopefully they'll have the MAPI package fixed by then.
As for 64-bit, I agree that, in the long term, it's going to be great. Unfortunately, a lot of the server-side software I run into on a day to day basis isn't compatible with it yet, especially on the accounting front (i.e. Timberline, MAS, ACCPAC, etc.). That will undoubtedly change, which is good, and it's not Microsoft's fault that some of these companies are dragging ass on it. However, it does make it a lot easier for me to consider alternatives that I normally wouldn't - if I'm dealing with an office of 20 people, I'm either going to have to spec out a beefier server that can handle two virtual servers or I'm going to have to spec out two separate boxes. Either way, it's going to cost the same before licensing if I do that with Exchange or with an alternative, and that wasn't as true before. Of course, I could also go with hosted Exchange, but, at least in my experience, performance is somewhat underwhelming.
Regarding the Exchange GUI... yes, SP1 has a better GUI than the RTM. However, previous versions of Exchange let you administer the entire thing from the GUI. Exchange 2007 doesn't let you do that anymore. There are a lot of tasks that require the use of PowerShell, like changing mailbox permissions, installing certificates, and more. Is PowerShell easy to use? Sure. But, if I'm going to learn a scripting language, why not learn Bash? It's going to take about the same amount of time anyways.
I'm not saying Exchange 2007 is bad or evil or anything. I do think Microsoft is being a little shady with their backup technologies, but they pulled the same thing with their anti-virus solution for Vista and it didn't matter much. I also think that Exchange 2007 is different enough where it's time for me to do something I should have done a long time ago - look at alternatives, see what else is out there, and find something that makes sense. Maybe it'll be Zimbra (doubt it - I'm not liking that annual subscription fee, either). Maybe it'll be something entirely different. Either way, for the first time in a while, I have a lot more motivation and a lot fewer excuses to see what else is out there than I did a year or two ago.
Post a Comment