Keeping things simple in IT

By apexwm, 30 June, 2011 15:16

Over the years, it seems that things in IT are becoming overly complex. Not just because of the natural progression of IT in general, but from extra bloat and nonsense that is being added on top of it all. Sometimes I think we need to start looking at trimming the extra fat from the bloat, and get back to the basics.

Recently, there's been recent discussion on Firefox and its new versioning system and lifecycle. When you step back and look at it, it doesn't make sense. The versioning that has been used for years has worked out well, and now all of a sudden somebody feels that there is a need for change. Mozilla could keep things simple and just stick with the conventional versioning system and release cycle.

I also wonder about software that is just becoming over bloated. I've often had these thoughts regarding messaging platforms when I compare Microsoft Exchange to open source solutions. Microsoft Exchange is basically a glorified IMAP type messaging platform. But it requires a huge amount of resources. For starters, it requires a 64-bit operating system on the server, plus 1-4 GB per processor core of RAM (I won't get into disk space or performance to keep things simple here). I've worked with a professional consultant and the recommendation for a company with about 600 mailboxes, is an Exchange 2010 server with 8 processors, 64-bit only, and 40 GB of RAM. When I compare Exchange and its requirements to a similar open source messaging solution (running on Linux) like imapd plus sendmail/procmail, Exchange needs such a large amount of resources in comparison. I have run a Linux-based solution using sendmail, procmail, and pop3d & impad for 600 mailboxes, using a 2 processor server, 32-bit mode, with 4 GB of RAM. Microsoft also does everything it can to minimize the load on the server by making Outlook cache all user mailbox data by default. While this does make sense, it seems like Microsoft is trying to cover up the bloat by requiring more hardware resources and RAM (it uses as much RAM as possible to help minimize disk utilization and speed up processing), rather than making the messaging platform more efficient. Don't get me wrong, Exchange has a ton of features right out of the box, which makes it very unique. And Exchange is highly scalable. But the overheard seems really high, especially for a smaller scale solution.

I further expand on my observations of Exchange because of issues I have seen with mail simply disappearing in user mailboxes. This article explains the issue in more detail. With a messaging platform, messages should NEVER disappear. To me, the Exchange model for a mailbox is just overly complex. There is more room for problems, like mail disappearing, rather than sticking to a more standard solution as imapd uses (even though it may not be as efficient -- more testing would be needed to benchmark the two). I have never witnessed any sort of disappearing mail with imapd like I have with Exchange. I've concluded that fewer issues are seen with imapd because it uses text files to store mail, and not a proprietary database type of files.

And even further I'll expand issues with Outlook vs. Thunderbird. Outlook stores local mail in OST and PST files, which are basically database type files as well. Thunderbird also uses a type of database file however it can be parsed as text, while Outlook files cannot. When the PST files become corrupt in Outlook, it is a lot of work to repair mainly because all of the mail is stored in one central file, making a single point of failure. Thunderbird stores local mail in separate files (one file for each folder), so that if one of them becomes corrupted, the entire local mail storage is not affected. Again, the simpler solution has its benefits.

It's no doubt that IT changes often and quickly. But I think we need to keep simplicity in mind when moving forward.

Talkback

Hi

*Fantastic* Article

I can totally relate to everything you are saying....in the past I've seen single core celeron /1gb "servers" (Wouldn't even qualify as a poor desktop PC) handle 1 million+ emails with speed and reliability.

Im an IT Consultant and am going to New Zealand from the UK next year and have had to sadly migrate several Linux mail-servers to Exchange for some clients as we can't get the local support :/

One of our machines was a Linux Quad Core Xeon with 4 Gb/Hardware Raid.....absolute flying machine...upgraded this spec from a Dual Xeon about 8 months ago.....imagine my embarrassment having to explain to the senior partners they would have to upgrade again......so new box 4 way Xeon 16Gb hardware Raid etc..............SBS 2011.....OMG !!!!!!! slow as ***k......I mean SLOW....really SLOW

I suppose anyone who has worked with Exchange all their lives wouldn't know the difference.....but coming from linux its like wtf.......................

PS Also used to run alot of Scalix Boxes.....way back when.......32,000 messages per folder (outlook limit) with maybe 80-100 folders, 30Gb Personal mail stores........fast as the proverbial s*** from the fan......sadly this product is about dead now.....and this was when SBS 2003 struggled with over 2500 messages per folder and the entire mailstore was limited to a paltry 18gb.

The biggest shock for me was When using SBS especially it is ALL one big wizard, and Microsoft actually RECOMMEND *ONLY* using the wizards like ?????? in linux you have to understand ALL components of a mailserver which means if something goes wrong you can actually fix it......Im just glad im gonna be on the other side of the World when one of these wallowing Exchange boxes throws a wobbler..................

And then theres ssh from my ex-nokia N900 (Sitting in California and New Zealand....hooking up with my Linux boxes in the UK)......so simple...so elegant. What does one do with Exchange ???? can I powershell into my MS box ??? or is it a clunky mstsc session ??

Im gonna stop now as im starting to ramble :D....once again nice article mate

Gary, UK
garyc 1 July, 2011 21:45
Report offensive content Reply