More Exchange 12: 64-bit only?

November 15 2005

Dec and Bill are both pointing to Microsoft employee Eileen Brown's weblog:

but the thing that really caught my eye was the statement about Exchange.  Exchange 12 (E12) will only be made available in 64 bit.  Yes, I said only.....
I almost want to assume that this was a misunderstanding.  Even with Microsoft's long history of rip-and-replace upgrades, I can't imagine them deciding that all at once, 100% of the installed base of Exchange hardware is obsolete just 12-15 months from now.  Wow.

Ed Brill Highland Park, IL USA Category:  Microsoft  Add/View Comments [49]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Greg Walrath http://www.univarusa.com/ | 11/15/2005 1:06:22 PM

    Yup, 64-bit only, according to the press release Eileen linked to:

    { Link }

  1. 2  Greg Walrath http://www.univarusa.com/ | 11/15/2005 1:08:03 PM

    Specifically:

    "To help customers take full advantage of the power of 64-bit computing, products including Microsoft® Exchange Server "12," Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003, Windows Server™ "Longhorn" Small Business Server, and Microsoft’s infrastructure solution for midsize businesses, code-named "Centro," will be exclusively 64-bit and optimized for x64 hardware."

  1. 3  Karl Merckel www.merckel.ca/home | 11/15/2005 1:09:00 PM

    Yep it's true

    <i>Exchange Server “12,” Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003, Windows Server™ “Longhorn” Small Business Server, and Microsoft’s infrastructure solution for midsize businesses, code-named “Centro,” will be exclusively 64-bit and optimized for x64 </i>

  1. 4  Rob Ingram  | 11/15/2005 1:11:49 PM

    Also on Infoworld here

    { Link }{ Link }

  1. 5  Ben Winzenz http://winzenz.blogspot.com | 11/15/2005 1:28:47 PM

    There is quite a bit of x64 capable hardware out there right now.

    All of the recent Xeon processors (2.8Ghz and above, I believe) are 64-bit capable, AMD Opteron is as well.

  1. 6  Simon Barratt http://apps.fmc.com/blog.nsf | 11/15/2005 1:39:18 PM

    Even of there are 64-bit capable processors out there, there is a difference between capable and robust, operational and implemented 64-bit processors running 64-bit OS and applications.

    It had to come at some point, but to make the product exclusive to 64-bit, instead of supporting both 32 & 64 bits, means one hell of a change, just to upgrade!

    { Link }

  1. 7  Craig Wiseman  | 11/15/2005 1:41:53 PM

    I think this one of the reasons that the xSeries hardware folks are so in love with Exchange - you just can't get enough hardware to run it on.

  1. 8  Wild Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 11/15/2005 2:13:56 PM

    It seems very brave, committing the entire E12, AD, etc to 64 bit. The XP 64-bit is only just out.

    I'm guessing that all this will rely on Server 2003 to run on 64 bit too...

    Well, I'm sure their customers know how much a risk they're running, having all those *new* microsoft operating systems, infrastructure components, exchange 12 itself, and of course hints of Outlook 64 bit too (though I see you can match that with 32-bit operating systems).

    Myself, I wouldnt bet on all that being there and functioning this end of 2007...

    ---* Bill

  1. 9  Sean Burgess http://www.phigsaidwhat.com | 11/15/2005 3:31:44 PM

    They couldn't get companies off of 5.5 without a significant OS change, what makes them think they are going to get them to go to Exchange 12? Also, since we all agree that Exchange is just a mail server, what the heck do they need a 64-bit environment for? I mean, store and forward email isn't all that exciting or difficult. Just think of the machines that used to run cc:Mail.

    Sean---

  1. 10  Chris Miller http://www.IdoNotes.com | 11/15/2005 3:33:06 PM

    I found the Lotus reponse to the MS annoucement

    { Link }

  1. 11  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 11/15/2005 5:37:47 PM

    Compare and contrast - Lotus release Domino 7... it's improved scalability provides support for 50% more users on the same hardware with decreased CPU usage. That's the equivalent of being given a hardware upgrade without changing the hardware. And that's before you take into account all of the other improvements.

    Meanwhile, Exchange customers are twiddling their thumbs waiting for an upgrade (yep, this time it's an upgrade) that offers little and doesn't solve any of the issues that cause them major grief today. Goodbye active / active clustering (for what it was worth). Hello more technology mandates.

  1. 12  Ports http://www.mrports.com/ | 11/15/2005 6:33:21 PM

    "or require 1/4 the disks to support the same users from a throughput perspective"

    It appears to say that using a 64 bit processor (and hence 64 bit processing) reduces the IO and thus the disk space required by the mail by 75% so this saves loads of disk space.

    Huh! A different processor reduces disk space required? Am I alone in thinking this makes no sense? I can buy that IO is reduced but not that the disk space required by the data store is reduced.

  1. 13  Adam Osborne www.preemptive.com.au | 11/15/2005 7:28:06 PM

    Interesting, so now the obvious question, is IBM going to do a 64bit version of Domino?

  1. 14  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 11/15/2005 7:37:37 PM

    I knew that was coming.

    The iSeries version of Domino 7 is already 64-bit (and I've been lead to believe this is true of at least one of the Linux variants). However, it's not architected to take advantage of 64-bit in this release.

    With the next release being client-focused (the alternating pattern established after 6.0), I'm not sure whether 64-bit will be a committed feature of the next Domino release or the one subsequent to that.

    One very very very important thing to keep in mind here is what Daz said in @11. Domino is doing more today with its 32-bit architecture -- there are advantages to going 64-bit, but in the meantime, look at the great benefits of a simple upgrade to 7.0 code. It's a very different pressure point than what the Exchange team is saying, which is that their product is so broken it needs a 64-bit architecture to move forward.

  1. 15  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 11/16/2005 2:06:56 AM

    @14 - even with a 64-bit architecture is Exchange moving forward? I see no resolution to the clustering issues in Exchange 12, and I don't think a 64-bit architecture will fix that - the problem is more grass-roots. So the 'move forward' is another change to the fundemental architecture post-E12 which, if sources are correct, will require another migration.

  1. 16  Alan Bell http://www.dominux.co.uk | 11/16/2005 3:34:42 AM

    love the spin, they are doing this "To help customers" lol. It would be a lot more accurate to say they are doing it to help Intel, and the hardware manufacturers. In turn all they ask is that the hardware companies continue to support their windows pre-installed monopoly.

  1. 17  Bill  | 11/16/2005 7:18:00 AM

    IIRC, the other "64 bit" variant is for zLinux or zOS and it's really only 63 bit.

  1. 18  Chris Whisonant http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com | 11/16/2005 7:22:28 AM

    @12 - To be fair, I think the disk space savings may come in the form of smaller page file space becaused an improved IO would likely mean less paging.

    As I was reading this, I thought to myself that "this may not be too bad. Exchange 2003 customers should just upgrade their hardware this year to 64-bit so that they will be ready when Exchange 12 comes out."

    Then I though that this would be way too easy for a Microsoft product. So I found this article at Microsoft:

    { Link }

    "Is there option to install Exchange 2003 on Windows 2003 64 Bit Edition?

    "Exchange 2003 cannot be installed on Windows 2003 64 Bit.

    The major reason for this limitation is that the Installable File System (ExIFS) driver runs under 32-Bit Kernel mode. Exchange Server 2003 doesn't include an Installable File System (ExIFS) 64-Bit driver version.

    Running 32 Bit Kernel mode drivers under 64 Bit Windows 2003 is not supported."

    So, basically, Exchange customers who want to upgrade have 2 options.

    1) Just suck it up and buy new hardware, OS, and Exchange 12 and "move forward". You have been assimilated.

    2) Ditch Exchange for Domino - you can retain the OS infrastructure you currently have for Exchange 2003.

  1. 19  Paul Robichaux http://www.e2ksecurity.com | 11/16/2005 7:36:32 AM

    Wow, lots of good old IBM-style FUD here :) It's clear that MS is making a huge bet on x64, but I think if you look carefully at the IDC and Gartner numbers on the hardware refresh cycle that lack of 64-bit hardware at customers isn't the problem-- you have to look fairly hard at HP, Dell, and even IBM to find 32-bit servers.

    There's no cost difference for x64 hardware vs x32, and there's no cost difference for x64 Windows Server 2003. I'm working on a column about an interview I had yesterday with Microsoft's Ray Mohrman around these issues; check { Link } for it later today.

    @8: Windows Server 2003 x64 is already shipping, and has been for several months.

    @12: no baloney. Exchange 12 generates about 75% fewer IO requests per second (IOPS) from a combination of two things: more RAM for caching and a larger database page size (8Kb vs 4Kb). Has nothing to do with disk space usage per se; a 100Kb message is a 100Kb message no matter where you store it (well, unless you're using Notes in which case it's 100Kb * # of recipients).

    @14: an upgrade is an upgrade. There's no logical difference between ND7 and E12 in that respect; any time you replace a messaging system, there are opportunities for things to go wrong. In this field there aren't any "simple" upgrades.

  1. 20  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 11/16/2005 8:05:53 AM

    @19 Seems like a bigger jump to have to upgrade the server operating system to 64-bit (since E2003 doesn't run on x64 server today) and also the Exchange server, even if the hardware might be in place.

    And "an upgrade is an upgrade" isn't really that simple. We upgraded this blog in 10 minutes to go from ND6 to ND7 -- I'm pretty sure that won't ever be the case going from E2003 to E12.

  1. 21  Damien http://damienkatz.net | 11/16/2005 8:19:03 AM

    I too would like to know how 64 bit can reduce IO so greatly. The only thing I can come up with is the test machines have much larger amounts of RAM (2gb+) used for disk cache than is useful on 32 bit systems. But in that case, its a bit misleading to claim 64 bits gives a performance boost, when really its just allowing you to use more of the hardware.

  1. 22  Joerg Michael  | 11/16/2005 8:35:09 AM

    @19, Paul, re: "an upgrade is an upgrade .... there aren't any simple upgrades"

    Well, no, with Exchange there have never been simple upgrade, only the painful variety. You really should try upgrading Domino some time. It really *is* painless and simple.

    Re: the 100KB * # of recipients: Oh, c'mon, if you really want to save a few bucks on disk storage, Domino has had a solution for that since the time when Exchange still claimed to do stuff besides mail and C&S.

  1. 23  Paul Robichaux http://www.e2ksecurity.com | 11/16/2005 8:56:11 AM

    @18: you forgot option 3: use the x64-capable hardware you may already have, cross-grade (at no cost) to Windows 2003 x64, and upgrade to Exchange. Interestingly, if you check out the quotes from Tony Redmond @ HP, the move to x64 Windows offers a *huge* perf and scalability improvement for AD, which AIUI is what most Domino shops are using as their primary directory. So, Win x64 is beneficial even if you're not using Exchange.

    @19: oops, forgot to finish my first paragraph. Bottom line: lots of customers already have x64 hardware, though they're not running x64 Windows. As the natural hardware refresh cycle takes place, there will be an increasing number of x64-capable boxes out there. When Exchange 12 ships, there will be plenty of hardware to take advantage of it. Of course, lots of customers won't need the scalability or performance benefits that x64 offers, and that's OK-- there are plenty of other features they can benefit from.

  1. 24  Paul Robichaux http://www.e2ksecurity.com | 11/16/2005 8:58:22 AM

    @21: I don't think it's misleading; the perf increase comes from a combination of more cache, a better-utilized cache (thanks to the change in page size), and some other optimizations that aren't fully implemented yet (IOW, I expect to see perf numbers get better as the code gets closer to final).

  1. 25  Damien http://damienkatz.net | 11/16/2005 9:22:18 AM

    Would a 64 bit installation with less than 2 gig ram see that performance inprovement over the same machine running 32 bit Windows?

  1. 26  Stu Mac macsfacts.blogspot.com | 11/16/2005 9:24:01 AM

    Lots of semantics being argued here...

    The bare facts are that I can run Domino 5, 6, 6.5 and 7, and probably Domino 8 too on the same Windows2000 server. No rip and replace, no migrations, no changes of directory etc. etc.

    If I do want to change hardware, I simply cluster the old server to the new one, run together for a day or so, then remove the old one.

    So MS can spin this any which way they like, but it is still a major change that customers neither want nor need...

    Stuart

  1. 27  David Wilhoit  | 11/16/2005 9:44:28 AM

    Darren, the 64 bit version resolves the issues that face the current Exchange user now. Virtual memory problems, disk IO, and other things I probably can't talk about :) Knowing what I do about E12, while I realize this isn't a popular marketing move, a 32 bit version of Exchange really wouldn't bring enough to the table IMO to upgrade from 2003.

  1. 28  Alan Bell http://www.dominux.co.uk | 11/16/2005 9:48:37 AM

    or does nobody run Exchange on their laptop? I would think that a 64bit requirement would make demo and development of things that integrate with it somewhat tricky.

  1. 29  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 11/16/2005 9:53:11 AM

    @27 - so active / active clustering is coming back and will be reliable?

  1. 30  TS  | 11/16/2005 10:06:16 AM

    Come on everyone, we all know Microsoft and how their story switches hourly. Lets be fair to Microsoft and give them the benefit of doubt that they will wake up shortly and realize their mistakes and recant. While I have not doubts they announced E12 only on 64-bit, I would bet that eventually MS will flip-flop a couple times before they actually release the product. How else do they plan to make news.

  1. 31  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 11/16/2005 10:14:32 AM

    @26 - Great post. That is one of the most important factors that customers need to understand. With Notes/Domino, you simply upgrade. With MS (based on the past, and I can only assume the future) you need to upgrade so many things, often including hardware, Office, Active Directory, etc.

  1. 32  David Wilhoit  | 11/16/2005 10:20:36 AM

    @29 - No, it won't be necessary for it to come back. Yes, since the VM issue will be resolved, you'd think you'd think you'll want to do A/A, but you won't. Other features in E12 will make that unnecessary.

  1. 33  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 11/16/2005 10:29:53 AM

    @31 - in the interest of being balanced, I'd would make the point that upgrading Domino shouldn't be trivialised... it requires planning, testing and communication, particularly if you skip a version and go from 5 to 7. But there's the good news, you can skip versions, and in doing so it's still an upgrade - and you absolutely can't deny that's easier than a rip and replace migration. Customers who upgrade to Exchange 12 should remember that before congratulating themselves on their new 64-bit environment.

  1. 34  Bruce Elgort http://www.bruceelgort.com | 11/16/2005 10:36:10 AM

    What if I am now mid stream migrating from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003 and I just purchased a boat load of 32 bit hardware for Active-Active clustering etc. Is M$ saying I now have to out and buy all new hardware for the next version of Exchange?

  1. 35  Stuart McIntyre macsfacts.blogspot.com | 11/16/2005 11:01:04 AM

    @34 - Plenty of customers have done exactly that... My company included.

    They are not going to be happy, but then again MS have done this before and will do it again. Somehow it just doesn't seem to hit home and materially affect their sales/share - one of the mysteries of our industry I guess. ;-(

  1. 36  Sean Burgess http://www.phigsaidwhat.com | 11/16/2005 12:23:28 PM

    @32 - I think there must be something in the koolaid you got from Redmond...

    [[Yes, since the VM issue will be resolved, you'd think you'd think you'll want to do A/A, but you won't.]]

    Since Exchange has never been an environment where true Active/Active clustering is available and reliable, I can understand how you might not understand the value in it. But regardless of how well a piece of software is written, it cannot prevent hardware failures from internal and external causes. When that occurs, no matter how many features your system has, the lack of share nothing, Active/Active clustering like Domino has will cause downtime that is unacceptable in the 24x7 business world that most of us work in.

    Sean---

  1. 37  Paul Robichaux http://www.e2ksecurity.com | 11/16/2005 12:50:33 PM

    @25: I think it's fair to say that there will be an improvement thanks to the change in page sizing and allocation, but I don't know the magnitude (and won't until they finish optimizing the rest of the store code).

    @28: MS announced that they'll have a 32-bit version for demo, test, and eval purposes. Personally, though, I'm looking for an excuse to buy a 64-bit Thinkpad :)

    @34: it turns out that there's a lot of "undercover" x64 hardware; I've spoken with several customers in the last few months who thought they were buying x32 and found-- to their delight-- that their Pentium Ds and Xeons actually supported EM64T.

  1. 38  Pete McPhedran www.corefusion.com | 11/16/2005 1:10:47 PM

    @12, I think the statement that you could use less disks was referring to throughput in a disk array. i.e. you could have 3 drives instead of 12 to get the same throughput presuming the number of users stayed the same.

    If the IOPS did infact drop 75% as claimed, this could be a valid statement, although I can't imagine anyone doing that, except to keep up the RNR mentality. As Mr Robichaux said, it's not disk space, it's data transfer speed.

    @23, however you look at it, M$ is saying that in order to use the "upgrade" of Exchange, you must replace your hardware. Whether you want to or not. Notes/Domino has never required a hardware upgrade to change versions, minor or major and in most cases there were enough performance improvments in the product alone to extend the life of existing hardware and OS. Even Windows.

    -Pete

  1. 39  Philip Storry http://www.not-so-rapid.com | 11/16/2005 3:15:22 PM

    @37 Paul,

    I'm of absolutely no doubt that you're right on the fact that there are customers out there with 64-bit hardware already, or even that some people have been buying 32-bit hardware and finding they've got the EMT kit.

    But that can only be in server acquisitions from the last year or so.

    The question we're asking is simply this: How many customers running Exchange have refreshed every single server's hardware in the past year with 64-bit capable hardware?

    For those that haven't, it's new hardware time. Regardless of whether or not their existing hardware is adequate (or even over-specced!).

    Our reaction as the Domino community is simply this - lots of customers didn't even move OS to upgrade their messaging infrastructure. How many will want to move OS AND do a complete hardware refresh?

    No matter which way you look at it, this is the sort of move that sounds great: 64 bit == new!)

    But then when you look at an environment and start planning the upgrade, you realise that it's actually going to be more like a case of 64 bit == painful, lengthy and expensive

    If I were still an Exchange admin, I'd want my Exchange Servers to make my tea every morning and manage my personal investment portfolio so that it makes a permanent 50% gain every day. Nothing less would justify this kind of upgrade.

    ;-)

  1. 40  Ben Poole http://www.benpoole.com | 11/16/2005 4:55:54 PM

    It's all irrelevant. MS will market the move to 64 bit as being amazing and good for everything. So, IT depts will lap this crap up, the software and hardware will be purchased, and everything will happen with scant attention to actual TCO, ROI and so forth.

    Bah!

  1. 41  Adam Osborne www.preemptive.com.au | 11/16/2005 11:34:35 PM

    @40, Ben, I can't help but think you're right. Hence I hope IBM comes out with a 64bit me to plan, but they still support 32bit policy - how good would that be !

  1. 42  Stuart McIntyre macsfacts.blogspot.com | 11/17/2005 6:57:37 AM

    @40, It does seem to be classic MS process here though.

    New hardware = new OS = new application

    Why oh why, it just doesn't have to be this way... My fave OS, AIX, has been 64-bit since 1997 (AIX4.3), and running on 64-bit hardware since then, all with backward-compatibility, forward-compatibility and great stability and reliability.

    This Intel/hw vendor/MS collusion is getting sickening...

  1. 43  Chris Whisonant http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com | 11/17/2005 7:19:30 AM

    @42 - Ditto with OS/400. It's been 64-bit since 1995.

  1. 44  Alan Bell http://www.dominux.co.uk | 11/17/2005 7:33:54 AM

    the story has been picked up by Slashdot now.

    { Link }

  1. 45  Bill Pappert  | 11/17/2005 12:42:59 PM

    @33 - Come now, Darren... Every upgrade, whether it be Domino, Exchange, server OS, workstation OS, or even the decision to change the revision level of the word processing package in an office requires a certain amount of planning, testing, and execution. The simple fact is that once you've done the testing and planning of parallel Domino and Exchange upgrades, the Exchange upgrade will most often involve a bumpier road.

    And yes, I've participated in upgrades of each.

  1. 46  David DeWell  | 11/17/2005 4:26:55 PM

    One thing that we are obviously forgetting (beyond the features) is that fact that Domino still runs on more platforms by far than Exchange ever will. Because Microsoft is so focused on their own operating system, they will never be able to cover the multitude of OS'es that Domino does.

  1. 47  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 11/17/2005 4:45:00 PM

    @45 - Bill, so you're agreeing with me? I didn't want to get caught in the trap of saying that Domino upgrades are a breeze and trivialising what is potentially a major project. But not as major as a migration.

  1. 48  Bill Pappert  | 11/18/2005 7:20:43 AM

    @47 Darren... I'm agreeing, with a proviso.

    I agree completely, there's no such thing as an upgrade which doesn't require careful consideration, planning, and execution.

    OTOH, I have found that when upgrading Domino, you have to be creative and go out of your way to mess it up. When upgrading Exchange, it's easy to run into a disaster.

    To illustrate: I've upgraded Domino servers via remote control at 6am on a weekday when staff were due in at 9am and the datacenter where we were doing the upgrade was dark and unmanned. Things had been properly planned and tested well in advance, and we knew that it'd take less than two hours to get the upgrade done.

    I'd never, even on a bet, take on an Exchange upgrade without having at least a full day to work through the (un)expected. It is far easier to take a bad step and make a hash of it with Exchange than with Domino.

  1. 49  Randall Shimizu  | 11/19/2005 3:35:04 AM

    Exchange 12 64 bit:

    It's typical MS my way or the highway upgrade tactics... But Intel will love this since it forces customers to buy new processors. With 64 bit it gives MS more room for code bloat...

    The first question that comes to mind is will the Exchange 12 64 bit edition be for x86 only or will it be optimized to Itanium and Epic.

    One has to remember that the Intel x86 64 bit and AMD Athalon are not true 64 bit chips. Both chips are utilize a 32 bit core with 64 bit extensions....

    Lotus:

    x86 platforms: Personally I have my doubts that Domino will be optimized for 64 bit on x86. My own feeling is that Lotus will concentrate on optimizing Workplace for 64 bit instead. On the otherhand there could be there could be enough market demand to justify this.