July 21, 2009 at 8:31 am
I am puzzled by the posts in this thread in which it is argumented that JET blue is fast and compact etc. In my personal experience with exchange as a user I find it bloated slow and often unresponsive. From people administrating it I get the feeling they too think its a desaster waiting to happen.
What I miss is explicit mention of what people want, that needs to be incorporated into exchange. I as a common user that problably reflect the majority already find it having too much of everything, making it annoying to use at times for such simple tasks it is used for.
On the matter of time lost by integrating SQL server engine into exchange in some form I feel like that is a bogus argument. It is just a matter of modeling your data needs in a relational way and be done with it for good. Scaling wont be an issue if it is well done.
As for filestream in SQL Sevrer 2008....I think it is unusable for 99% of the potential users out there. When I read it was coming I was like, finally...when I saw it, it turned out to be next to useless and totally unusable for any app I ever made. Why...It is too perfectly integrated and you require low level system access to do weird things in order to actually have access to the data. What always is the need by websites etc is a way for backing up the files along with the metadata already in the DB. While keeping the files directly accessible without translation code sitting in between. A .gif stays a .gif, use a DBkey to filename mapping handled by the DB before references to said file are put into webpages etc.
If you can guarantee or have SQL Server just monitor its storage folders transparently for you, then you should be able to do read access without any difficult mapping at all! Sometimes I feel I live on another planet then the rest of us. This is one of those moments where I really think...what is going on inside those other people to make them come up with this stuff?
July 22, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Interesting - I had the chance to work with a few Exchange ROSS and SQL ROSS engineers over the last decade at various stops in my career. It seemed that both the Exchange and SQL folks had actually worked on the initial studies and as well as the 'not even alpha' tests for this very thing for the Exchange 2003 release. SQL Server was found functionally workable for Exchange however performance varied from dismal to abysmal in comparison to their highly customized exclusive 'Jet' for Exchange engine.
The ultimate (and humorous) explanation I was given was that they were attempting to compare apples to oranges by way of pomegranates !!!
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
July 23, 2009 at 2:48 am
Microsoft isn't exactly known for sensible datamodelling in their end-user packages, which might go a long way to explain the early performance findings. I am thinking of Microsoft CRM for example....it has horrible performance and I would argue that is fully explainable by how bad they did the database model, code and maintenance scripts.
Microsoft CMS is another one I ran across at some point, I can still cry by just writing this down. And because of this I kind of expect Exchange to be no different in this respect.
Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 17 (of 17 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply