SCI 2011 Apr 28 Latest Microsoft ESRP v3.0 (Exchange 2010) results

Apr 282011

This Storage Intelligence (StorInt™) dispatch covers recent Microsoft Exchange Solution Review Program (ESRP)[1] v3.0 results for Exchange 2010. Since the last time we discussed this over-5K mailbox category nine months ago, there have been more than a dozen new submissions. Future dispatches will report on the under-1K and 1K-to-5K mailbox categories, but all prior ESRP V2 and ESRP V3 performance dispatches are available on SCI’s website[2].

Latest ESRP V3.0 results

We start our ESRP analysis with Exchange database and log access latency results. Recall that this chart is sorted by database read latencies.

SCIESRP110428-001 (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, Inc., All Rights Reserved

Figure 1 Top ESRP database-read latencies

For Figure 1, the new IBM DS8700 takes top honors with HDS AMS systems taking then next 4 slots followed by HP. The IBM DS8700 is the latest hardware from IBM for open and mainframe enterprise class storage and used 128-450GB, 15Krpm FC attached drives with 114.6GB of cache. In contrast, the (#6) HP and (#10) Compellent both used SAS 450GB 15Krpm drives with 24 and 66 drives respectively.

There has been quite a lot of commentary on my blog[3] about ESRP’s latency numbers. What’s clear is that Jetstress has a cut off at 20 msec. and as long as an ESRP result fits within that latency it’s considered acceptable by Microsoft. I argued that even though that’s the case superior latency is still something to be strived for regardless of the maximal cutoff. Other parties disagreed and said something to the effect that anything less than 20msec is a passing grade. Nevertheless, that the DS8700 had almost ½ the read latency of the Compellent system is significant and worth noting.

We now turn to absolute ESRP database transfers per second.

SCIESRP110428-002 (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, Inc., All Rights Reserved

Figure 2 Top 10 Database transfers per second

There are three new submissions on this chart namely, the (#1) IBM DS8700, their Storwize v7000 subsystem (#7) with 60K mailboxes and the HDS AMS 2500 with 20.9K mailboxes (#10). We should note that the Storwize system had (24) SSDs in their configuration while no one else in this top 10 used FlashCache or SSDs.

Normally, at this mailbox level we don’t show absolute transferst because the spread is so wide. For example, we have from 20K (#1 IBM DS8700) to 100.8K mailboxes (#3 HDS AMS 2500) on display here. But there is continued interest in absolute numbers and as such, report them occasionally.

On the other hand, we always report on the normalized ESRP database transfer counts per 1K mailboxes (see Figure 3 below).

SCIESRP110428-003 (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, Inc., All Rights Reserved

Figure 3 Top normalized DB (per 1K mailboxes) transfers per second

IBM’s DS8700 system showed up well here but used a 0.80 IOs/mailbox Jetstress driver parameter. In contrast, the #2, HDS AMS 2100 system used 0.18 IOs/mailbox that just happened to be the median for these top 10 systems.

Unclear what advantage having more or less IOs/mailbox would be but if one’s subsystem can handle more workload, probably raising the IO rate or reducing the mailbox count would help this ranking. Naturally, having both helps even more.

Next we examine log playback performance.

SCIESRP110428-004 (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, Inc., All Rights Reserved

Figure 4 Top log playback times

Over time I have come to better appreciate a select set of ESRP metrics and the Log playback times is one of them. Log playback is the average time it takes a storage system to process a number of 1MB log files applied to a single database.

We assume that all 1MB log files contain the same number of transactions. Possibly the number of mailboxes per database might impact this processing (for these top 10, the numbers range from 250 to over 1400 mailboxes per database). Certainly, how a single database is spread across drives (and/or SSDs) and system cachinge size/effectiveness should impact this value.

In any event, it simulates a pretty complex, database workload, driven as fast as the storage can handle it. Whereas, many of the other ESRP workloads are all driven by the IO/mbx/sec, number of mailboxes, and/or other Jetstress parameters.

Such results as shown above (see Figure 4) probably says that the IBM DS8700 is a pretty good subsystems to process Exchange-like, database transactions.

Another of my favorite ESRP reported metrics is DB backup activity. There are two measurements reported in ESRP for database backup activity 1) Database data backed up in MB/sec/database and 2) Database data backed up in MB/sec/server. For reasons of brevity, we shall only discuss the later and save the former for another time.

SCIESRP110428-005 (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, Inc., All Rights Reserved

Figure 5 Top 10 database backup activity in MB/second/server

Figure 5, shows somebody other than IBM DS8700 in top place, the Dell PowerVault MD1200 with 24-2TB SAS connected, 7200RPM drives. One surprising result here is that Dell (now that it owns Compellent) has five of the top seven results on this metric. The other surprise is that seven of the top ten on this chart used SAS connected disks. It’s apparent that the drive count does not impact this particular metric.

As stated in prior Dispatches using Exchange 2010’s DAGs and lagged databases has reduced the need for backups. But, we firmly believe there are many valid reasons for database backups and as such, an ongoing need for mailbox backup performance will remain. Thus, we continue to report on this valuable metric.

SCIESRP110428-006 (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, Inc., All Rights Reserved

Figure 6 Top 10 DB xfers/sec/spindle

Finally, our last chart shows the top ten per drive performance in total database transfers/sec/spindle. We exclude any subsystem with FlashCache or SSDs from this analysis to get a pure per drive view of performance. We see that Dell PowerVault MD1200 and IBM’s DS8700 has done well here again.

Conclusions

Well this is our second ESRP analysis on the over-5K mailbox category and we have quite a few new entries for this report. Nonetheless, the obvious ESRP winner in this mailbox level was the IBM DS8700. This system is the latest generation of enterprise storage hardware that IBM has been delivering since the ESS (AKA, the “shark”) was retired and seems to be well represented.

Finally, as discussed in prior dispatches, ESRP/Jetstress results seem destined to be difficult to compare but in our view, merit the effort. Thus, we strive to refine our analysis with each report. As always, feel free to contact us with any ideas on how to improve. In that regard, our contact information can be found below or on our website at SilvertonConsulting.com.

[This performance dispatch was originally sent out to our newsletter subscribers in April of 2011. If you would like to receive this information via email please consider signing up for our free monthly newsletter (see subscription request, above right) or subscribe by email and we will send our current issue along with download instructions for this and other reports. Also, if you need an even more in-depth analysis of SAN storage system features and performance please take the time to examine our SAN Storage Briefing available for purchase from our website.]

—–

Silverton Consulting, Inc. is a Storage, Strategy & Systems consulting services company, based in the USA offering products and services to the data storage community

[1] ESRP results from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/ff182054.aspx, as of 28 April 2011

[2] All prior SCI ESRP Dispatches can be found at http://silvertonconsulting.com/cms1/dispatches/

[3] http://www.RayOnStorage.com

SCI 2009 Oct 30 latest ESRP results analysis – over-5K mailboxes

Oct 302009

This dispatch covers Microsoft Exchange Solution Review Program (ESRP)[1] performance results for the over 5000 mailboxes results category. Prior reports discussed the over 1000 to 5000 mailboxes and the under 1000 mailboxes result categories[2].

ESRP was never intended to compare subsystem performance but rather as a proof of concept for Microsoft and storage vendors to depict a configuration supporting a given workload. Hence, any comparisons necessarily come with some caveats and may not be real. Nonetheless, SCI feels comparisons can well serve both the vendor and end-user storage community and thus, worth noting.

Latest ESRP V2.0 results

The first chart refers to aggregate average database backup throughput across all storage groups. This value correlates moderately to aggregate database transfers per second. (See figure 1).

(SCIESRP091030-001) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

As can be seen from Figure 1, backup activity is dominated by HDS and HP (an HDS OEM). Partly HDS’s commanding result is due to the overall number of drives and mailboxes being serviced. However, 3PAR’s 96Kmbx and Dell’s Equal Logic iSCSI result for 90Kmbx results only came in at number five and seven respectively. Also, the number nine result for Pillar Data’s Axiom 600 supports only 34K mailboxes and stands almost as well as the other results supporting many more mailboxes. A couple of caveats worth noting here database backup performance can be impacted by

Number of disk drives in a configuration
How message store databases are split across those spindles
Subsystem RAID level

(SCIESRP091030-002) 2009 (c) Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

This chart shows ESRP reported database latencies for read, write and log write operations. SCI and others feel the read latency metric best shows what an end-user experience would be from a subsystem configuration. The list is sorted by read latency. New results from Pillar Data with a read latency of 3ms and Sun’s J4400 at 8ms showed up very well here. A couple of considerations to note:

While read latency is unaffected by replication mode, write and log write latency can be seriously impacted by how the Exchange database is replicated. For example if one examines the EMC SRDF/S in the number two position, its write latency is pretty high. However if one considers that SRDF/S was active this means the data has to be written to the secondary subsystem in parallel to being written to the primary subsystem and as such its write latency does not look that bad.
There are a couple of ways to impact or game this value. One easy way is to reduce the overall load on the storage. As ESRP reports are intended to show a viable performing solution to handle a simulated user workload we assume that these products are all optimizing cost and performance, so believe this is not an issue here.
For an ESRP benchmark to be accepted, read latency must be under 20 msecs. Some vendors may try to push read latency out closer to 20msecs in order to support more mailboxes with less hardware. As such, those vendors may not show up well on this chart.

(SCIESRP091030-003) 2009 (c) Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

The new result for Pillar Data broke into the top 10 log playback time. The top 4 systems LSI 399x, Pillar Data Axiom 600, Lefthand SANIQ, and IBM DS4800 would all be considered mid range storage subsystems although HP’s Lefthand was supporting a heavy workload at 50K mailboxes and was configured accordingly. The range for the top ten subsystems is fairly large, over 2X from lowest to highest. It’s unclear how one succeeds in this metric other than having fast disk and low latency database operations. Similar to the backup discussions above, playback performance can be impacted by:

Number of disk drives in a solution,
How message store databases are split across those spindles,
Subsystem RAID level,
Replication type

(SCIESRP091030-004) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Finally, we now turn to normalized database transfer results and the Top 3 normalized ESRP/Jetstress results belong to HDS AMS2100, HDS AMS2300 and IBM XIV, all midrange systems. A few considerations are warranted on normalized results:

Normalized results do not always scale well. Although four of these results were for 20,000 mailboxes or over, (HDS USP-V, Sun StorageTex 6540, 3PAR Inserv T800, and EMC Symmetrix at 60KMbx) the top result from HDS supported only 5400 mailboxes and may not scale much beyond that quantity of mailboxes.
One surprise here is the close running of everyone behind the top five results and may be an artifact of the ESRP benchmark striving to generate equivalent workloads per user mailbox. But the workload simulated for these results varied considerably (0.3 to 1.0 iops/sec/mbx).

Conclusions

From our perspective, ESRP results in this over 5K mailbox tier are getting more competitive. There were a number of new ESRP results in this category over the last 9 months, and at least 3 over the last quarter. Seeing HDS, EMC and IBM highend systems, all running the same performance tests is a good indicator of their willingness to show their products in the best light as well as high customer interest in Exchange solutions. Most likely, these vendors do not see their individual results as entirely comparable and arguably they may have a point, but we differ with them on this assessment. Moreover, seeing DAS (HP MSA), SATA (IBM XIV), SAS (Sun, HDS AMS2100, & HP MSA), iSCSI (EMC, HP, NetApp, & Dell) and FC storage subsystem results compete in this top-tier at least on various metrics indicates to us that all storage interfaces can be competitive in mission critical applications.

ESRP/Jetstress results are inherently difficult to compare. Nonetheless we believe Exchange results provide a unique real world benchmark and deserve some comparison so that the public can make properly informed storage purchases. Our next ESRP/Jetstress report will return to the 1K to 5K mailbox tier. We continue to welcome any feedback on how to do better.

This performance dispatch was sent out to our newsletter subscribers in October of 2009. If you would like to receive this information via email please consider signing up for our free monthly newsletter (see subscription request, above right) or subscribe by email and we will send our current issue along with download instructions for this and other reports. Also, if you need an even more in-depth analysis of SAN storage system features and performance please take the time to examine our SAN Storage Briefing available for purchase from our website.

A PDF version of this can be found at

SCI 2009 October 30 Latest ESRP results (PDF 681.0 KiB)

Silverton Consulting, Inc. is a Storage, Strategy & Systems consulting services company, based in the USA offering products and services to the data storage community

[1] ESRP results from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/bb412164.aspx, as of 27 January 2009

[2] All of prior SCI ESRP Dispatches can be found at ofhttp://www.silvertonconsulting.com/page2/page2d/storage_int_dispatch.html

SCI 2009 Jan 27 latest ESRP results analysis – over 5K mailboxes

Jan 272009

This dispatch restarts SCI’s series on Microsoft Exchange Solution Review Program (ESRP)[1] performance results and reports on the over 5000 mailboxes results category. Prior reports discussed the over 1000 to 5000 mailboxes and the under 1000 mailboxes result categories[2]. As such, to better compare ESRP/Jetstress results SCI reports on both normalized and un-normalized results. For normalized results in this highest-tier category we use operations per 5000 mailbox (5Kmbx). Un-normalized results are in the appendix.

Latest ESRP V2.0 results

We have added a new ranking for this analysis, which depicts the average database backup throughput across all storage groups. This value correlates moderately to aggregate database transfers per second. (See figure 1).

(SCIESRP090127-001) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

As can be seen from the above chart, the new report on HP XP24000 dominates this category. Partly HP’s commanding result is due to the overall number of mailboxes being serviced. However, Dell’s Equal Logic iSCSI result for 90K mailboxes only came in at number four. Also the number ten result, for HP EVA4400 supports only 8K mailboxes and stands almost as well as the other results supporting many more mailboxes. A couple of caveats worth noting here database backup performance can be impacted by

Number of disk drives in a configuration
How message store databases are split across those spindles
Subsystem RAID level

(SCIESRP090127-002) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

We add another new chart for this analysis showing the ESRP reported database latencies for read, write and log write operations. SCI and others feel the read latency metric best shows what an end-user experience would be from a subsystem configuration. The list is sorted by read latency. A couple of considerations to note:

While read latency is unaffected by replication mode, write and log write latency can be seriously impacted by how the Exchange database is replicated. For example if one examines the EMC SRDF/S in the number two position, its write latency is pretty high. However if one considers that SRDF/S was active this means the data has to be written to the secondary subsystem in parallel to being written to the primary subsystem and as such its write latency does not look that bad.
There are a couple of ways to impact or game this value. One easy way is to reduce the overall load on the storage. As ESRP reports are intended to show a viable performing solution to handle a simulated user workload we assume that these products are all optimizing cost and performance, so believe this is not an issue here.
For an ESRP benchmark to be accepted, read latency must be under 20 msecs. Some vendors may try to push read latency out closer to 20msecs in order to support more mailboxes with less hardware. As such, those vendors may not show up well on this top 10 chart.

(SCIESRP090127-003) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Another new chart for this report is the log playback ranking. This is a rather complex workload which encompasses log reading and database reading and updating (or writing). The timings are reported as the average time in seconds it takes to playback or process a 1 MB log. The top 3 systems LSI 399x, Lefthand SANIQ, and IBM DS4800 would all be considered mid range storage subsystems although Lefthand was supporting a heavy workload at 50K mailboxes and was configured accordingly. The range for the top ten subsystems is fairly large over 2X from lowest to highest. It’s unclear how one succeeds in this metric other than having fast disk and low latency database operations. Similar to the backup discussions above, some caveats would include:

Playback performance can significantly be impacted by the number of disk drives.
How message store databases are split across those spindles also can impact this
Subsystem RAID level may also impact playback performance
Replication type may also impact log playback performance

(SCIESRP090127-004) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Finally, we now turn to overall database transfer results and the Top 3 normalized ESRP/Jetstress results belong to HP MSA70, Sun StorageTex 6540 and EMC Symmetrix DMX-4 4500. A few considerations are warranted on normalized results:

Normalized results do not often scale well. Although four of these results were for 20,000 mailboxes or over, (Sun 6540 at 20KMbx, EMC Symmetrix at 60KMbx, HDS AMS1000 at 25KMbx, and IBM DS8100 at 24KMbx) the top result from HP supported only 6000 mailboxes and may not scale much beyond that quantity of mailboxes.
One surprise here is the close running of everyone behind the top result and may be an artifact of the ESRP benchmark striving to generate equivalent workloads per user mailbox. However, the over 5K mailbox tier is the only category that shows results this close to one another. (see prior ESRP StorInt Dispatchen for more information).

Conclusions

From our perspective, ESRP results in this over 5K mailbox tier are getting more competitive. There were a number of new ESRP results in this category over the last 9 months, and at least 4 over the last quarter. Seeing HP (an OEM version of HDS’s top product), EMC Symmetrix and IBM DS8300 running the same performance tests is a good indicator of their willingness to show their products in the best light as well as high customer interest in Exchange solutions. Probably these vendors don’t see their individual results as entirely comparable and arguably they may have a point, but we would differ with them on this assessment. Moreover, seeing SAS and iSCSI results compete in this top-tier at least on various metrics indicates these interfaces can provide some competition to FC storage in mission critical applications.

This performance dispatch was sent out to our newsletter subscribers in January of 2009. If you would like to receive this information via email please consider signing up for our free monthly newsletter (see subscription request, above right) or subscribe by email and we will send our current issue along with download instructions for this and other reports. Also, if you need an even more in-depth analysis of SAN storage system features and performance please take the time to examine our SAN Storage Briefing available for purchase from our website.

A PDF version of this can be found at

SCI 2009 January 27 Update to ESRP/Jetstress benchmark performance results (PDF 1.4 MiB)

Silverton Consulting, Inc. is a Storage, Strategy & Systems consulting services company, based in the USA offering products and services to the data storage community

Appendix

(SCIESRP090127-005) (c) 2009 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

Aggregate or un-normalized database transfer results are highly correlated to number of mailboxes in service and as such, are relatively less useful metrics in our opinion. Nonetheless, it’s probably no surprise that the top results belong to HP, EMC and IBM. Aside from the iSCSI results, this ranking is similar to one ranked purely on number of mailboxes.

[1] ESRP results from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/bb412164.aspx, as of 27 January 2009

[2] All of prior SCI ESRP Dispatches can be found at ofhttp://www.silvertonconsulting.com/page2/page2d/storage_int_dispatch.html

SCI 2008 Apr 23 first ESRP v2 (Exchange 2007) performance results analysis dispatch – over-5K mailboxes

Apr 232008

This is SCI’s first report on Microsoft Exchange Solution Review Program (ESRP)[1] performance results. SCI found ESRP reports as a group inconsistent and somewhat difficult to compare. However, upon further examination, we came to a clear understanding of the results and discuss our comparisons below.

Latest ESRP V2.0 results

(SCI080423-001) (c) 2008 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

ESRP uses a Jetstress benchmark together with a formalized reporting framework to publish results. Jetstress benchmark variables are many, involving not only mail store database and log layouts, but also the number of Exchange servers and numerous other storage, host and software configuration options. We have chosen to ignore most of these variables in our analysis and only use those few we deem important for comparing subsystems.

As a starting place this dispatch focuses on results for the 5000 mailboxes and over ESRP category. This is the top and most challenging category in ESRP reports. Future SCI performance reports will discuss the 1001 to 5000 mailbox and the 1000 and under mailbox result categories.

Moreover, Jetstress comparisons are confounded by the high correlation between database operations and the number of mailboxes tested. In order to explore more fully this correlation effect, SCI reports on both normalized and un-normalized results. For normalized results we use operations per 5000 mailboxes (5Kmbx) in this dispatch. As an example, EMC Symmetrix originally reported results on 84,000 mailboxes (see Figure 2), but normalized they perform around 2800-database operations/second/5Kmbx. (see Figure 1).

Both the normalized and un-normalized results are for database transfer activity only and do not include log file transfers or other characteristics. Also ‘DB wt/sec/5Kmbx’ is database write transfers per second per 5000 mailboxes and similarly, ‘DB rd/sec/5Kmbx’ is database read transfers per second per 5000 mailboxes.

The Top 3 normalized Jetstress results were Sun StorageTek 6540, IBM DS4800 and HDS AMS1000 storage subsystems reporting on 20-, 8-, and 25-Kmbx respectively (see Figure 1). A few considerations on normalized results:

Normalized results can’t always scale all the way up to 50Kmbx. For example while the HP MSA60 may do well at 6Kmbx it is unlikely to scale much beyond that. On the other hand, the NetApp FAS3070 FC should scale well up to 26Kmbx.
Most subsystems in the top 10 use FC interfaces, the lone exception being number 4, HP MSA60 that is SAS attached. The closest iSCSI attached subsystem came in at number 11, the DELL PowerVault MD3000i.
Overall the top 10 performance results span a small range, about 600-database transfers/second/5Kmbx. The span for the top 10 un-normalized results is much larger.

(SCI080423-002) (c) 2008 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

As shown in the above chart un-normalized results suffer somewhat from mailbox correlation – the more mailboxes under test the higher the database operations achieved. Although not all rankings are a function of mailbox counts, certainly the top 3 ranked results show the impact of more mailboxes.

The top 3 subsystems in this category are EMC Symmetrix, DELL Equal Logic, and Lefthand SANIQ® at 84-, 65- and 50-Kmbx respectively. A few considerations about un-normalized results:

There seems to be a performance clustering around 20Kmbx as shown in the last 7 of the top 10. The performance range for this group of results narrows, only around 6000-database transfer difference from highest to lowest. Also, the mailbox-database transfer correlation breaks down for this group.
Here iSCSI results compare well against FC subsystems (e.g., see both FAS3070 results above).
Equal Logic and Lefthand results are also iSCSI so for the top 10 un-normalized results, 7 are FC and the rest, iSCSI.
We might add that these iSCSI results were with Gige interfaces. The closest 10Gbe iSCSI result came in at number 14 for the Intransa IP SAN subsystem.

Conclusions

It seemed like normalized results was the only valid comparison to use but total database results were also of interest, especially where the number of mailboxes are similar. Also, ESRP reports on other activity, namely log writes, database backups, latencies, and log replays. SCI chose to focus on database activity because it seemed most valid for comparing normal Exchange mailbox activity. Perhaps future versions of this dispatch will report on some of these other reported results as well.

As this is our first ESRP report we welcome any feedback on how to do better. Jetstress results are inherently difficult to compare. Hopefully our approach will prove to have merit and if so, look to future ESRP SCI StorInt™ Performance Result Dispatches to follow this lead.

This performance dispatch was sent out to our newsletter subscribers in April of 2008. If you would like to receive this information via email please consider signing up for our free monthly newsletter (see subscription request, above right) or subscribe by email and we will send our current issue along with download instructions for this and other reports. Also, if you need an even more in-depth analysis of SAN storage system features and performance please take the time to examine our SAN Storage Briefing available for purchase from our website.A PDF version of this can be found at

SCI 2008 April 23 First performance results dispatch on ESRP results (PDF 711.6 KiB)

Silverton Consulting, Inc. is a Storage, Strategy & Systems consulting services company, based in the USA offering products and services to the data storage community

[1] ESRP results from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/bb412164.aspx, as of 23 April 2008

Data Storage, Stategic Planning & Systems Development products and services | Silverton Consulting

SCI 2011 Apr 28 Latest Microsoft ESRP v3.0 (Exchange 2010) results

Latest ESRP V3.0 results

SCI 2009 Oct 30 latest ESRP results analysis – over-5K mailboxes

Latest ESRP V2.0 results

Conclusions

SCI 2009 Jan 27 latest ESRP results analysis – over 5K mailboxes

Latest ESRP V2.0 results

Conclusions

SCI 2008 Apr 23 first ESRP v2 (Exchange 2007) performance results analysis dispatch – over-5K mailboxes

Latest ESRP V2.0 results

Conclusions

NEWS and EVENTS

TOP DOWNLOADS

TWITTER FEED...

POPULAR POSTS

NEWSLETTER

TRANSLATE THIS PAGE

Dispatch categories

Dispatch archives

Data Storage, Stategic Planning & Systems Development products and services | Silverton Consulting

SCI 2011 Apr 28 Latest Microsoft ESRP v3.0 (Exchange 2010) results

Latest ESRP V3.0 results

SCI 2009 Oct 30 latest ESRP results analysis – over-5K mailboxes

Latest ESRP V2.0 results

Conclusions

SCI 2009 Jan 27 latest ESRP results analysis – over 5K mailboxes

Latest ESRP V2.0 results

Conclusions

SCI 2008 Apr 23 first ESRP v2 (Exchange 2007) performance results analysis dispatch – over-5K mailboxes

Latest ESRP V2.0 results

Conclusions

NEWS and EVENTS

TOP DOWNLOADS

TWITTER FEED...

POPULAR POSTS

NEWSLETTER

TRANSLATE THIS PAGE

Dispatch Tag Cloud

Dispatch categories

Dispatch archives