Microsoft, Linux square off in InfoWorld's Exchange migration challenge
In a series of real-world tests, four Linux messaging servers vie to take down Microsoft Exchange. Will they fly high or crash and burn?
Follow @infoworldSee correction at end of review
For IT administrators, the pressure to move away from Microsoft platforms can almost seem palpable, especially at midsize businesses where data dollars are already stretched thin. Microsoft’s products, including the company’s dominant Exchange messaging server, beg to be upgraded 18 to 24 months after purchase. That’s a tough load for some customers to carry. Yet the prospect of shifting platforms can be daunting, as the consequences can be dire and the path to successful migration uncertain.
The benefits are alluring, however: a longer run for your technology dollar and less dependency on additional Microsoft products for full functionality. At least that’s the theory we decided to test. Can a company successfully migrate from Exchange to an entirely different platform, and does the move make sense after everything is said and done? To find out, we developed InfoWorld’s first Exchange migration challenge, sending out a small flock of Linux-based competitors to face Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 Enterprise Edition.
Our scenario starts with a harried IT administrator managing a 500-node network with Windows 2000 Server and Exchange 2000 on the back end and Windows XP Professional facing users and running Microsoft Outlook 2000, XP, and 2003. The object of the test was to swap out the Exchange 2000 server — and that server only — and replace it with a new messaging solution.
Caveats included communication with Active Directory, where required; full mirroring of all core Exchange collaboration features, including shared schedules and contact lists; and a Webmail feature to contend with OWA (Outlook Web Access). Finally, these solutions couldn’t in any way affect end-users’ day-to-day e-mailing experience; users would continue to use Outlook, thus obviating the need for retraining expenses. We also examined the migration from the business view to determine whether the Penguin really makes sense in the long run.
 Click for larger view. |
By the end, we’d seen more e-mail servers than we ever wanted to, but more important, we discovered some surprising muscle among the Penguin people when pitted against Exchange.
Gordano Messaging Server 10.05
Those of us who’ve suffered through an e-mail server upgrade know that several tedious steps are necessary, especially during the migration process. The GMS (Gordano Messaging Server), however, is looking to change those rules by offering a unique feature that makes it easy to move clients to the new server in real time. Coupled with the rest of its impressive feature set, this made GMS one of the standouts of the review.
| Test Center Scorecard | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |  |  |  |  |  | |
| 25% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 10% | ||
| Gordano Messaging Server 10.05 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
5.6
Poor
|
| 25% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 10% | ||
| Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 Enterprise Edition | 6 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 5 |
5.3
Poor
|
| 25% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 10% | ||
| Novell Suse Linux Openexchange 4.1 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 6 |
5.6
Poor
|
| 25% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 10% | ||
| Scalix 9.0.1 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 |
5.5
Poor
|
| 25% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 10% | ||
| Stalker Software CommuniGate Pro 4.2 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
5.4
Poor
|
