Hi Supak et al,
Please let me clarify your support statement below. Microsoft does not currently support NAS for Exchange Server 5.5 or 2000. Network Appliance fully supports Exchange 5.5 on filers via our SnapManager 1.x for Exchange software. We have engaged IBM Global Services' highly-regarded Enterprise Services for Microsoft Technologies Practice for our escalation path regarding Exchange-specific issues that we cannot resolve.
Please refer to the two press releases on this topic for more details: http://www.netapp.com/news/press/news_rel_20000207.html http://www.netapp.com/news/press/news_rel_20000207a.html
Network Appliance is actively working with the Microsoft Exchange group in order to comply with their requirements for certification of our unique leading-edge technology in an Exchange 2000 environment.
In the meantime, NetApp has had tremendous success with our SnapManager 1.x product line for Microsoft Exchange 5.5. To date, over 100 SnapManager customers in the ASP, Financial, Networking Equip. Providers, Telecom, State & Federal Govt, E-Commerce and Healthcare sectors (among others) have enjoyed the benefits of the industry's ONLY online Snapshot Backup and Recovery technology for Microsoft Exchange Server.
A couple of SnapManager for Exchange case-studies are available online: ASP - UNITED MESSAGING http://www.netapp.com/case_studies/ftp/united_mess.pdf FINANCIAL - BANK OF OKLAHOMA http://www.netapp.com/case_studies/ftp/bok.pdf
Finally, some excellent technical whitepapers discussing the architecture and deployment of Exchange 5.5 on NetApp filers with SnapManager (demonstrating excellent performance at high users loads such 599ms response time for 9600 users) are available at: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3067.html http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3054.html http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3074.html
Should you have any further questions, I would be happy to talk with anyone on this list regarding our Microsoft Exchange-related offerings at any time.
Thanks, -Val. Manager, Collaborative Strategy Network Appliance Inc. WHO STORES MORE THAN HALF THE WORLD'S E-MAILBOXES? FIND OUT AT: www.netapp.com 613.724.8674 - Phone 847.589.6510 - Fax 800.489.6924 - Pager E-Mail: valb@netapp.com
-----Original Message----- From: Supak backup e-mail account [mailto:supaklailert@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 10:31 PM To: Martin Hannigan; rdobbins@netmore.net Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: Exchange 2k
NetApp filer is fully supported for use with MS Exchange. I don't see how this could lead to a problem more than any direct-attaced storage.
NetApp choking on lots of small files? I don't think so. WAFL handles small files far better than most file systems notably UFS.
Waste of space? Maybe. NetApp uses 4K blocks so if you have lots of really small files <4K then you'll waste quite a bit of space.
Supak
--- Martin Hannigan hannigan@world.std.com wrote:
For both performance and supportability reasons,
it is extremely inadvisable
to put Exchange mailboxes/private stores/public
stores on anything other
than a filesystem which is directly-connected to
the NT server in question.
People do all sorts of odd things with NetApps
just because they can - and
don't get me wrong, I love my F740 - but this is
just plain crazy. For your
own peace of mind, don't do it.
So the netapp still chokes on lots of active small files i.e. like usenet news, etc? We were thinking about turning ours into a hardcore news spool..but I remember a few years ago there was some issue with the millions of < 64KB file sizes..
-M
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Dear Val,
Please be honest and open to the user community and add " and has no plans to do so in the future" to the second sentence.
See http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q250/3/48.asp
Peter
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Bercovici, Val Sent: dinsdag 7 november 2000 21:14 To: 'supak.lailert@yipintsoi.com' Cc: toasters@mathworks.com; Martin Hannigan; rdobbins@netmore.net Subject: RE: Exchange 2k (long)
Hi Supak et al,
Please let me clarify your support statement below. Microsoft does not currently support NAS for Exchange Server 5.5 or 2000. Network Appliance fully supports Exchange 5.5 on filers via our SnapManager 1.x for Exchange software. We have engaged IBM Global Services' highly-regarded Enterprise Services for Microsoft Technologies Practice for our escalation path regarding Exchange-specific issues that we cannot resolve.
[ ... marketing stuff removed for clarity ...]
Thanks, -Val. Manager, Collaborative Strategy Network Appliance Inc. WHO STORES MORE THAN HALF THE WORLD'S E-MAILBOXES? FIND OUT AT: www.netapp.com 613.724.8674 - Phone 847.589.6510 - Fax 800.489.6924 - Pager E-Mail: valb@netapp.com
-----Original Message----- From: Supak backup e-mail account [mailto:supaklailert@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 10:31 PM To: Martin Hannigan; rdobbins@netmore.net Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: Exchange 2k
NetApp filer is fully supported for use with MS Exchange. I don't see how this could lead to a problem more than any direct-attaced storage.
NetApp choking on lots of small files? I don't think so. WAFL handles small files far better than most file systems notably UFS.
Waste of space? Maybe. NetApp uses 4K blocks so if you have lots of really small files <4K then you'll waste quite a bit of space.
Supak
--- Martin Hannigan hannigan@world.std.com wrote:
For both performance and supportability reasons,
it is extremely inadvisable
to put Exchange mailboxes/private stores/public
stores on anything other
than a filesystem which is directly-connected to
the NT server in question.
People do all sorts of odd things with NetApps
just because they can - and
don't get me wrong, I love my F740 - but this is
just plain crazy. For your
own peace of mind, don't do it.
So the netapp still chokes on lots of active small files i.e. like usenet news, etc? We were thinking about turning ours into a hardcore news spool..but I remember a few years ago there was some issue with the millions of < 64KB file sizes..
-M
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Peter Bodifee wrote:
Please be honest and open to the user community and add " and has no plans to do so in the future" to the second sentence.
See http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q250/3/48.asp
This is kinda funny: "The primary concern of the Exchange Server product group is to make sure that ExchangeServer is a reliable platform..."
NetApp has a product to speed up the recovery of corrupt Exchange databases. Veritas does, too. IBM is willing to provide support for it. Admission of a problem, Microsoft, is the first step to recovery.... ;)
Until next time...
The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill@mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Peter Bodifee wrote:
Received: from unknown (HELO bodifeexxxxL) (168.159.171.172) by smtp.mail.vip.suc.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 14:50:15 -0000
[...]
Busted. :)
% whois -h whois.arin.net 168.159.171.172 EMC Corporation (NET-EMC-B1) 171 South Street Hopkinton, MA 01748-9103
Netname: EMC-B1 Netnumber: 168.159.0.0
Coordinator: Chambers, Paul A (PAC15-ARIN) pac@EMC.COM (508)435-1000 X1276 (FAX) (508)435-2649
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
GW.EMC.COM 168.159.1.2 NS0.EMC.COM 168.159.3.1
Record last updated on 24-Apr-1997. Database last updated on 10-Nov-2000 18:12:36 EDT.
Brian,
Congratulations. You passed IP network tracing 101.
Has it crossed your mind that people who receive 100+ messages/day have multiple accounts? To separate message flow between public and company private? Probably not. So it would not make any sense to you either why I posted my comment on "MSFT Exchange not supporting NAS" using my yahoo account.
BTW, you are also an "expert" in hiding your employer's identity (AT&T Canada) by using some obscure domain (risc.org), so what are you busting me for? For giving my personal opinion to serve the IT user community without showing who pays my salary? Have a life....
Peter -----Original Message----- X-Apparently-To: bodif36772@yahoo.com via web4505.mail.yahoo.com X-Track: 1: 40 Received: from tor-smtp2.netcom.ca (207.181.101.101) by mta411.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2000 20:00:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from tor-dev1 (tor-dev1.nbc.netcom.ca [207.181.89.12]) by tor-smtp2.netcom.ca (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA04411; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:00:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:00:09 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Tao taob@risc.org X-Sender: taob@tor-dev1.nbc.attcanada.ca To: Peter Bodifee bodif36772@yahoo.com cc: "'Bercovici, Val'" Valentin.Bercovici@netapp.com, toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Exchange 2k (long) In-Reply-To: 000a01c04993$1d0e7200$acab9fa8@bodifeexxxxL Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.21.0011102258290.10980-100000@tor-dev1.nbc.attcanada.ca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Peter Bodifee wrote:
Received: from unknown (HELO bodifeexxxxL) (168.159.171.172) by smtp.mail.vip.suc.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 14:50:15 -0000
[...]
Busted. :)
% whois -h whois.arin.net 168.159.171.172 EMC Corporation (NET-EMC-B1) 171 South Street Hopkinton, MA 01748-9103
Netname: EMC-B1 Netnumber: 168.159.0.0
Coordinator: Chambers, Paul A (PAC15-ARIN) pac@EMC.COM (508)435-1000 X1276 (FAX) (508)435-2649
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
GW.EMC.COM 168.159.1.2 NS0.EMC.COM 168.159.3.1
Record last updated on 24-Apr-1997. Database last updated on 10-Nov-2000 18:12:36 EDT.
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Peter Bodifee (bodif36772@yahoo.com) said, on [001114 20:13]:
BTW, you are also an "expert" in hiding your employer's identity (AT&T Canada) by using some obscure domain (risc.org), so what are you busting me for? For giving my personal opinion to serve the IT user community without showing who pays my salary? Have a life....
The fact that I admin for shockwave.com, and used to admin for Sony, is not relevant to my postings here, and is not relevant to my occasional tweaking of netapp themselves. Nor is Brian's employment at AT&T.
Your employment at EMC is a different matter entirely, and falls completely within the pattern we've seen from EMC employees on this list. If you can't tell the difference, then you've got fewer ethics than you do clues.
*plonk*
-Pete
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Peter Bodifee wrote:
BTW, you are also an "expert" in hiding your employer's identity (AT&T Canada) by using some obscure domain (risc.org), so what are you busting me for? For giving my personal opinion to serve the IT user community without showing who pays my salary? Have a life....
I have more than one affiliation. risc.org is my own domain and AT&T Canada is in fact my full-time employer. That's no secret. I stood up in front of 100+ people a couple of weeks ago and gave a brief filer-related talk with the AT&T Death Star logo plastered across every slide. AT&T Canada is a happy Netapp customer. AT&T Canada is also a large (and presumably happy) customer of EMC. AT&T Canada, however, does not invest in Netapp as a company, nor is it a market competitor to Netapp. EMC is. That is relevant.
Don't worry, you're not the first EMC employee to arouse a bit of ire around here (hi, Christian! ;-))...
-
Bercovici, Val -
Brian Tao -
Pete Ehlke -
Peter Bodifee -
Todd C. Merrill