Exchange Server 2013 email archiving caveats and limitation ?

Hi People,

Does anyone here know what is the limitation and the caveats / pitfall that we need to aware when using the Microsoft Exchange Server 2013 build in archiving solution as oppose to use the 3rd party application, in this case Symantec Enterprise Vault v11 ?

In my current case, I'm using Exchange Server 2007 and EV v9, it works well, but somehow Microsoft Exchange Server 2013 already got builtin email archiving feature with no additional license. So I wonder what I should be aware of before decommissioning the Enterprise Vault and using the native builtin email archiving of Exchange Server.

Any thoughts and comment would be greatly appreciated.

Senior IT System EngineerIT ProfessionalAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Simon Butler (Sembee)ConsultantCommented:
While archiving is built in, to use it will require Enterprise CALs.
There is no stubbing, it is the complete email that is archived. Therefore if you have stubbed the current emails you would have to reverse that process, migrate to Exchange 2010, then archive within Exchange. Usually that means a second mailbox move - once in to a temporary database, archive, then move in to a permanent database, which is therefore much smaller.

It very much depends on WHY you are archiving. If you need to retain the content for regulatory purposes then you will need to look at legal hold etc within Exchange to retain the content.
If you are journaling the email, then third party software may still be required.

Your question is actually quite hard to answer without know the whole background.

Senior IT System EngineerIT ProfessionalAuthor Commented:
Hi Sembee,

I'm using 2007 and trying to do Exchange Server 2013 coexistence migration, why do I need to migrate to 2010 and then 2013 ?

The reason we are using EV was:

1. To relieve the disk space from the SAN into lower cost storage appliance (so instead of using EMC VNX disk LUN, the archived email can be stored in EMC DataDomain which supports compression and Encryption).

2. In case we need to search the email for some investigation, we have to look the email from the EVJournal mailbox.

3. Stubbing.... with the current Exchange 2007 and EV 9 setup, the old email is converted into placeholder and the actual email body is stored in EV archived mailbox in EMC DataDomain, therefore the mailbox size is manageable. So can Exchange Server 2013 do similar thing to reduce the active mailbox size ?
Simon Butler (Sembee)ConsultantCommented:
There is no stubbing with Exchange solutions. The Exchange product team actually discourage stubbing, as it causes performance problems with Exchange. They said this once publically, but it was withdrawn shortly afterwards (probably under pressure from partners).

You can store the archive on lower cost storage, that is kind of the point. The archive mailbox is stored in another database, you could even store it on another server!

There is no journal functionality though. You can journal the email to a mailbox, but that is really designed to be used as a place holder for a third party product to remove the content for searching etc.

In my experience, where clients need to retain the data through journaling, they rarely bother with any other archiving method. The journal platform is used for both, allowing end users access to their own journal, but being unable to modify the content, but can have it delivered back to their mailbox.
While it is a change in the behaviour, on almost all clients I have implemented that kind of solution, there has been a significant drop in the amount of email stored, because the end users know they can quickly find and restore content themselves if required.


Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Ultimate Tool Kit for Technology Solution Provider

Broken down into practical pointers and step-by-step instructions, the IT Service Excellence Tool Kit delivers expert advice for technology solution providers. Get your free copy now.

Senior IT System EngineerIT ProfessionalAuthor Commented:
Thank you !
Senior IT System EngineerIT ProfessionalAuthor Commented:
Does this means that by using the built-in archiving function in Exchange Server 2013, the user outlook mailbox access speed and response should perform faster than using the 3rd party archive, in this case Enterprise Vault ?
Simon Butler (Sembee)ConsultantCommented:
Not always.
If the server the third party tool is using for its database is decent spec then it can sometimes be faster to find through that. Something SQL backed is probably quicker at finding an individual message, but the native archiving product could be better for doing thread review. There is no one answer.

It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.