In Exchange Server 2010, there is no more single instance storage (SIS). To help understand why SIS is gone, let's review a brief history of Exchange.
During the development of Exchange 4.0, we had...
Updated May 12, 2020
Version 4.0
Blog Post
Good article - I liked the work you did to describe the history of Exchange storage as it pertains to today. Here's a few comments to the crowd!
1. Enabling large mailboxes at a lower cost doesn't make email a commodity. It makes large mailboxes a commodity, but you need to remember that over the past decade you guys have created great functionality and integration across OCS, Sharepoint, plugins with Avaya and Cisco for UM, workflows, great mobile messaging applications, etc. I can tell you that the average enterprise email architecture out there is still pretty complex, and in many cases is becoming more complex and less of a commodity.
2. To Scott Feltmann - The cheaper disk is more around the sizes of disk you can use now that the IOPS requirements are so much better in 2010. Your example of requiring 3 copies of a DAG to use cheaper disk is referring to the JBOD model - which i'm not a personal fan of, although it definitly does work! Really the cheaper disk story in 2010 (from what we've seen) translates into customers being able to use 5GB to 10GB average mailbox sizes with awesome performance results by leveraging huge disks, not hundreds of small disks like it was in 2003, 2007, etc.
When Ross says that Exchange 2010 has "changed the messaging landscape" he's not using marketing spin. This release of Exchange is going to require customers and partners to take a real step back and understand what MSFT has done here. By changing the lowest level of the database structures and standing all our old IOPS rules on their heads, the MSFT team has rewritten the book on some of our old pains. If you think about it most of the old pains Exchange brought us were data related, and specifically around the massive amounts of data we had to deal with. When your customers are frustrated because they want to archive to lower speed disk and keep exchange on the high speed/premium disk, your response should be - "Why put any of your mail data on the high-speed disk?". Its a valid question now that Exchange 2010 has dropped. Its going to require customers and partners to believe in the 10GB avg mailbox. Its also going to require MSFT and partners to be able to properly explain this stuff to the customer - and to have tested it in their labs to make sure they really get it.
1. Enabling large mailboxes at a lower cost doesn't make email a commodity. It makes large mailboxes a commodity, but you need to remember that over the past decade you guys have created great functionality and integration across OCS, Sharepoint, plugins with Avaya and Cisco for UM, workflows, great mobile messaging applications, etc. I can tell you that the average enterprise email architecture out there is still pretty complex, and in many cases is becoming more complex and less of a commodity.
2. To Scott Feltmann - The cheaper disk is more around the sizes of disk you can use now that the IOPS requirements are so much better in 2010. Your example of requiring 3 copies of a DAG to use cheaper disk is referring to the JBOD model - which i'm not a personal fan of, although it definitly does work! Really the cheaper disk story in 2010 (from what we've seen) translates into customers being able to use 5GB to 10GB average mailbox sizes with awesome performance results by leveraging huge disks, not hundreds of small disks like it was in 2003, 2007, etc.
When Ross says that Exchange 2010 has "changed the messaging landscape" he's not using marketing spin. This release of Exchange is going to require customers and partners to take a real step back and understand what MSFT has done here. By changing the lowest level of the database structures and standing all our old IOPS rules on their heads, the MSFT team has rewritten the book on some of our old pains. If you think about it most of the old pains Exchange brought us were data related, and specifically around the massive amounts of data we had to deal with. When your customers are frustrated because they want to archive to lower speed disk and keep exchange on the high speed/premium disk, your response should be - "Why put any of your mail data on the high-speed disk?". Its a valid question now that Exchange 2010 has dropped. Its going to require customers and partners to believe in the 10GB avg mailbox. Its also going to require MSFT and partners to be able to properly explain this stuff to the customer - and to have tested it in their labs to make sure they really get it.