Blog Entry

richardbliss's picture
blog
Reads:

3771

Score:
1
1
1
 
Comments:

7

Stubbing confusion - It just doesn't work that way

Author Info

6 November 2009 - 12:00am
Submitted by: richardbliss

(View Disclaimer)

Stubbing. The issue continues to be discussed with a lot of claims being made. Stubbing is a function of email archiving. You can't stub unless you have an archiving solution. All, 100%, every single one of the GroupWise vendors offering archiving solutions support stubbing in GroupWise. But, just because they support it doesn't mean that it is a good idea.

Jay Parker, a very skilled and distinguished engineer for the GroupWise team asked me today why I keep beating up on stubbing.

Here is my answer:

Why do you stub? Mainly you stub in the hopes of reducing your GroupWise message store. You want to reduce your GroupWise message store so you have better performance, faster backups, and more stability.

That is all good. But what do you have to do in order to achieve this level of success with stubbing. Ah, here is the question and the core of the confusion. Recently a vendor claimed that stubbing can possibly reduce your GroupWise mailbox by 80-90%. The claim in based on attachments taking up the majority of your mailbox size and if you stub out the attachments, then presto, your GroupWise message store is reduced. NOT!

Look, GroupWise is an extremely scalable, robust, stable product for a reason. It has something called Single Instance Storage. This means if you have 100 users on a Post Office and send them all a file that is 10 MB in size, you don't end up with 1 GB of disk usage (100 users x 10 Mb = 1 GB), instead you simply have a single copy of the file at 10MB with everyone pointing to the file.
This is the simple part. It is clean and easy.
Now, let's stub that 10 MB file attachment and see if we achieve a 80-90% decrease in our message store for GroupWise.

First, who is going to be stubbed? Who makes this decision? Does everyone have the same policy, or is the their a hierarchy of needs where some people in the organization don't want to or can't use stubbing?
For example. Mobile users on mobile devices can't see their messages if they are stubbed. Web Access users can't see their files. Mac and Linux client users can't see their files, only Windows clients.
Is their an age policy of files with exceptions for Executives?

With all of this now decided, let's look at what happens to the file that is being stubbed.

100 people received the 10 MB file. There is only one copy of the file in the message store. The decision is made to stub everything older than 60 days, or bigger than 5 MB, or whatever reason.

Okay, off goes the stubbing and pulls it out of the GroupWise message store and places it in an archive that also has single instance storage. This means even though multiple users are moving in their data, only 1 copy exists in the archive. Ideally, the 10 MB file should be out of GroupWise and in the Archive, thus reducing GroupWise by 100% for this file, or 10MB.

BUT WAIT....did 100% of the 100 users meet the stubbing requirements? Are 100% on Windows, do 100% not need access via WebAccess, and are 100% in the same archiving policy group, meaning no one is an exception.

Because if even 1 person is an exception, for whatever reason, then that 10MB file stays in GroupWise, with ZERO reduction in the message store. You now have a 10MB file in GroupWise AND a 10MB file in your Archive. You didn't reduce your disk requirements, you actually increased them. And at the same time you introduced a level of complexity to your message system without any of the benefits of a smaller GroupWise system.

The claim that 80-90% of your message store can be reduced with stubbing is flat out wrong and irresponsible to suggest. The requirements to meet this number are so strict and confining that it is nearly impossible to achieve.

You can't stub a single mailbox and reduce the message store significantly unless certain situations are met.

First, the majority of the files with attachments are sent to a group inside the GroupWise system that ALL are stubbed together.

Second, a large number of files with attachments are sent outside of the GroupWise message store.
These two circumstances will allow you to drastically reduce your GW system, but again, one person, one user, one exception, and it all is for nothing.

I'm not bashing Stubbing, I'm bashing the misinformation that is being pushed as a reason to adopt stubbing. If you are implementing this feature, be very sure that you realize how you must configure your stubbing to limit the exceptions. Otherwise you are simply creating a bigger problem than you are solving.

I have created a short video that explains what I'm talking about. You can find it at:
http://richardbliss.typepad.com/richardblissblog/2...


Disclaimer: As with everything else at Cool Solutions, this content is definitely not supported by Novell (so don't even think of calling Support if you try something and it blows up).

It was contributed by a community member and is published "as is." It seems to have worked for at least one person, and might work for you. But please be sure to test, test, test before you do anything drastic with it.




User Comments

FlyingGuy's picture

FINALY!!!!!!

Submitted by FlyingGuy on 6 November 2009 - 12:00am.

Someone who "gets it"....

Other then those already mentioned, and already pointed out by yours truly many many posts ago, the very fact that the messages "stubbed out" are not available via the web client ( which the current GroupWise Archives are not either.. HINT HINT Alex, et. all ) is just a deal killer and if that was not enough, only the Windows client can use this technology so it is even more of a deal killer.

It is amazing to me how Novell on one hand is a champion of the Linux cause both on the server and desktop level ( SLES & SLED ) and cannot get the GW Clients to functional parity on Linux and Windows, never mind the Mac Client?!

The sooner that the development kids at Novell realize that Java is not the end all, be all of development they just might get a clue and use something like Qt that supports ALL platforms natively and just write that damn thing once ( perhaps in version 9 ) and have it run, with functional and interface parity on all platforms, but I am not holding my breath.

dnicoll's picture

WebAccess is coming

Submitted by dnicoll on 9 November 2009 - 9:47am.

For a start WebAccess stubbing integration is on the way... but in the meantime you can use an Archiving solution which already has integration with WebAccess. That way Windows client users can acces their archives via stubs and WebAccess users use the 3rd party WebAccess integration.

True about the MAc and Linux clients, but that's a wider issue not restricted to stubbing.

But the fact remains, even with these current restrictions, people are still using stubbing because it is of benefit to them. Not every environment uses WebAcces, or not all use it for all users.

So let's not victimise stubbing here..

thtran's picture

Which Archiving solution has integration with WebAccess?

Submitted by thtran on 11 December 2009 - 1:03am.

"For a start WebAccess stubbing integration is on the way... but in the meantime you can use an Archiving solution which already has integration with WebAccess."

Which Archiving solution would that be?

dnicoll's picture

Archiving Solution with WebAccess integration

Submitted by dnicoll on 14 December 2009 - 4:09am.

M+Archive from Messaging Architects has integration with GroupWise WebAccess which allows access to archived items using the same look and feel as WebAccess.

David

dnicoll's picture

Don't be put off...

Submitted by dnicoll on 8 November 2009 - 12:00am.

So Richard is still trying to scare people about stubbing, but if you follow his logic and his example in his linked video and replace the word "stubbing" with "archiving" then you'd see that the scenario he paints would be equally true of archiving alone as it would be of what he refers to as stubbing.

So is Richard telling us all to stop archiving? I think not given that his organisation sells an archiving solution. Deduce for yourself the reasons why Stubbing is being painted as the culprit here.

The reality is that Stubbing is simply a user access enhancement to 3rd party archiving, but a very good one that many have been looking forward to. People have been using 3rd party archiving for storage management purposes for years without running into the naive storage example Richard ilustrates in his video, so why should the addition of stubbing suddenly make people lose all common sense. Simple answer... it doesn't.

If you are archiving correctly then stubbing will be a highly desirable addition to your archiving solution. If you archive without thought and use bad archiving tools, you will suffer regardless of whether you use stubbing or not.

ackitsme's picture

Let's really stop and think about this...

Submitted by ackitsme on 9 November 2009 - 10:49am.

Every statement that was made about stubbing sounds an awful lot like he's talking about archiving.

Every archiving solution from the major players in GroupWise software has been around for a while and has run with a web interface long before GroupWise 8 existed and stubbing was a possibility.

When referring to archiving, stubbing is simply an enhancement for the functionality that was already there; it gives users additional capabilities for accessing the messages they were already archiving.

This doesn't take away the web interface that was already there. The ONLY people that this would really impact are the users running from their mobile devices assuming that those devices can't access the archival website.

Webmail users would simply access their archive from a separate website; something that I doubt would add too much complication.

The only really valid point I see from this article is that if you are selectively archiving mailboxes, you can't expect to see the rate of return that the vendors are promising. If you implement an across-the-board archival, then those numbers can match up.

aloe's picture

What happens with the user data

Submitted by aloe on 11 November 2009 - 12:12am.

I'm interested what happens with the amount of used space per user. When i have a mailbox restriction of 500MB and the these space is filled up to 450MB. When i stub this 10MB file as a single user, will this reduce the used space in my personal mailbox by this 10MB after i stubbed this file? If NO then i agree with richard, If YES, that is why i want to stub,to reduce the single users mailbox and give him the possibility to have an 'unlimited' mailbox.
And there is another reason to stub. Data older than 6 months will be used only by a small amout of users, data older than a year is almost accessed by nobody. I don't want to access this data through any of the GroupWise Clients.I want to put them in a fulltextindexed enterprise archive with other data from all other sources too who is accessible through a webclient available for any devices.

© 2013 Novell