Verifying Compatibility with Vendors
| < Day Day Up > |
Verifying Compatibility with VendorsArmed with the full list of applications that need to be tested for compatibility, the application testing team can now start hitting the phones and delving into the vendors' Web sites for the compatibility information. For early adopters of Exchange Server 2003, more research may be needed because vendors tend to lag behind in publishing statements of compatibility with new products. Past experience has shown that simply using the search feature on the vendor's site can be a frustrating process, so having an actual contact to call who has a vested interest in providing the latest and greatest information (such as the company's sales representative) can be a great time-saver. NOTE Experience has shown that the applications written by Microsoft that are to be upgraded to the new Exchange Server 2003 environment are not always compatible without updates or patches. Exchange add-ons ”such as Instant Messenger, SharePoint Portal, or Conferencing Server ”may have changed radically or not be yet upgraded to be compatible with Exchange Server 2003, so compatibility should not be assumed. Information is usually readily available on any such changes on the home pages for the specific products on Microsoft's Web site. Each vendor tends to use its own terminology when discussing Exchange Server 2003 compatibility ( especially when it isn't 100% tested); a functional way to define the level of compatibility is with the following four areas:
When possible, it is also a good practice to gather information about the specifics of the testing environment, such as the version and SP level of the Windows operating system the application was tested with, along with the hardware devices (if applicable , such as tape drives , specific PDAs, and so forth) tested. Tracking Sheets for Application Compatibility ResearchFor organizational purposes, a tracking sheet should be created for each application to record the information discovered from the vendors. A sample product inventory sheet includes the following categories:
It is a matter of judgment as to the extent of the notes from discussions with the vendors and materials printed from Web sites that are retained and included with the inventory sheet and kept on file. Remember that URLs change frequently, so it makes sense to print the information when it is located. In cases where product upgrades are required, information can be recorded on the part numbers , cost, and other pertinent information. Six States of CompatibilityThere are essentially six possible states of compatibility that can be defined, based on the input from the vendors, and that need to be verified during the testing process. These levels of compatibility roughly equate to levels of risk of unanticipated behavior and issues during the upgrade process:
Each of these states is discussed in more detail in the following sections. Using an Exchange Server 2003 “Compatible ApplicationAlthough most applications require some sort of upgrade, the vendor might simply state that the version currently in use will work properly with Exchange Server 2003 and provide supporting documentation or specify a URL with more information on the topic. This is more likely to be the case with applications that don't integrate with the Exchange Server components but interface with certain components and might even be installed on separate servers. It is up to the organization to determine whether testing is needed to verify the vendor's compatibility statement. If the application in question is critical to the integrity or security of the Exchange data stores, or provides the users with features and capabilities that enhance their business activities and transactions, testing is definitely recommended. For upgrades that have short time frames and limited budgets available for testing (basic testing as defined earlier in the chapter), these applications may be demoted to the bottom of the list of priorities and would be tested only after the applications requiring updates or upgrades had been tested. A clear benefit of the applications that the vendor verifies as being Exchange Server 2003 “compatible is that the administrative staff will already know how to install and support the product and how it interfaces with Exchange and the helpdesk. End-users won't need to be trained or endure the learning curves required by new versions of the products. NOTE As mentioned previously, make sure to clarify what NOS and which specific version of Exchange Server 2003 was used in the testing process, because seemingly insignificant changes, such as security patches to the OS, can influence the product's performance in your upgraded environment. Tape backup software is notorious for being very sensitive to minor changes in the NOS or version of Exchange, and tape backups can appear to be working but might not be. If devices such as text pagers or PDAs are involved in the process, the specific operating systems tested and the details of the hardware models should be verified if possible to make sure that the vendor testing included the models in use by the organization. If a number of applications are being installed on one Exchange Server 2003 system, there can be conflicts that would not be predictable. So for mission-critical Exchange Server 2003 applications, testing is still recommended, even for applications the vendor asserts are fully compatible with Exchange Server 2003. Requiring a Minor Update or Service Patch for CompatibilityWhen upgrading from Exchange 2000, many applications simply need a relatively minor service update or patch for compatibility with Exchange Server 2003. This is less likely to be the case when upgrading from Exchange 5.5 or a competing messaging product, such as Lotus Notes or Novell GroupWise. During the testing process, the service updates and patches are typically quick and easy to install, are available over the Internet, and are often free of charge. It is important to read any notes or readme files that come with the update, because specific settings in the Exchange Server 2003 configuration might need to be modified for them to work. These updates and patches tend to change and be updated themselves after they are released, so it is worth checking periodically to see whether new revisions have become available. These types of updates generally do not affect the core features or functionality of the products in most cases, although some new features may be introduced; so they have little training and support ramifications because the helpdesk and support staff will already be experienced in supporting the products. Applications That Require a Version Upgrade for CompatibilityIn other cases, especially when migrating from Exchange 5.5 or a competing messaging system, a product version upgrade is required, and this tends to be a more complex process than downloading a patch or installing a minor update to the product. The process will vary by product, with some allowing an in-place upgrade, where the software is not on the Exchange Server 2003 server itself, and others simply installing from scratch. The amount of time required to install and test these upgrades is greater and the learning curve steeper, and the danger of technical complexities and issues increases . Thus additional time should be allowed for testing the installation process of the new products, configuring them for optimal Exchange connectivity, and fine tuning for performance factors. Training for the IT resources and helpdesk staff will be important because of the probability of significant differences between the new and old versions. Compatibility with all hardware devices should not be taken for granted, whether it is the server itself, tape backup devices, or SAN hardware. If a new version of the product is required, it can be difficult to avoid paying for the upgrade, so budget can become a factor. Some vendors can be persuaded to provide evaluation copies that expire after 30 “120 days. Noncompatible Applications That Will Be Used AnywayAs discussed earlier in this chapter, Exchange Server 2003 can coexist with previous versions of Exchange and of the Windows operating system, so an Exchange Server 2003 migration does not require that every messaging server be upgraded. In larger organizations, for example, smaller offices might choose to remain on Exchange 2000 for a period of time, if there are legitimate business reasons or cost concerns with upgrading expensive applications. If custom scripts or applications have been written that integrate and add functionality to Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000, it might make more sense to simply keep those servers intact on the network. An example of this scenario could be a paging application that runs on Exchange 5.5 but is used by a few users and is being phased out, so it doesn't make financial sense to pay for an upgrade. Another example could be a faxing server where a number of proprietary fax boards were purchased and it continues to meet the needs of the company. Although it might sound like an opportunity to skip any testing because the server configurations aren't changing, connectivity to the new Exchange Server 2003 configurations still needs to be tested, to ensure that the functionality between the servers is stable. Again, in this scenario the application itself is not upgraded, modified, or changed, so there won't be a requirement for administrative or end- user training. Noncompatible Applications That Will Be Eliminated and Applications That Are Not Compatible and Will Not Be UsedAn organization might find that an application is not compatible with Exchange Server 2003, no upgrade is available, or the cost is prohibitive, so it decides to simply retire the application. Exchange Server 2003 includes a variety of new features, as discussed throughout the book, that might make certain utilities and management tools unnecessary. For example, a disaster recovery module for a tape backup product might no longer be needed after clustering is implemented. A VPN solution might be retired because OWA provides enhanced performance and provides the look and feel of the full Outlook client. Care should be taken during the testing process to note the differences that the administrative, helpdesk and end-users will notice in the day-to-day interactions with the messaging system. If features are disappearing , a survey to assess the impact can be very helpful. Many users will raise a fuss if a feature suddenly goes away, even if it was rarely used, whereas if they were informed in advance the complaints could be avoided. Noncompatible Applications That Seem to WorkThe final category applies to situations where no information can be found about compatibility. Some vendors choose to provide no information and make no stance on compatibility with Exchange Server 2003. This puts the organization in a tricky situation, and it has to rely on internal testing results to make a decision. Even if the application seems to work properly, the decision might be made to phase out or retire the product if its failure could harm the business process. If the application performs a valuable function, it is probably time to look for, or create, a replacement, or at least to allocate time for this process at a later time. If the organization chooses to keep the application, it might be kept in place on an older version of Exchange or moved to the new Exchange Server 2003 environment. In either case, the administrative staff, helpdesk, and end-users should be warned that the application is not officially supported or officially compatible and might behave erratically. Creating an Upgrade Decision MatrixAlthough each application will have its own inventory sheet, it is helpful to put together a brief summary document outlining the final results of the vendor research process and the ramifications to the messaging upgrade project. Table 17.3 provides a sample format for the upgrade decision matrix. Table 17.3. Upgrade Decision Matrix
As with all documents that affect the scope and end-state of the messaging infrastructure, this document should be reviewed and approved by the project stakeholders. This document can be expanded to summarize which applications will be installed on which messaging server if there are going to be multiple Exchange Server 2003 servers in the final configuration. In this way, the document can serve as a checklist to follow during the actual testing process. Assessing the Effects of the Compatibility Results on the Compatibility Testing PlanAfter all the data has been collected on the compatibility, lack of compatibility, or lack of information, the compatibility testing plan should be revisited to see whether changes need to be made. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the components of the compatibility testing plan are the scope of the application testing process, and the goals of the process (timeline, budget, extent of the testing, training requirements, documentation requirements, and fate of the testing lab). Some of the goals might now be more difficult to meet, and might require additional budget, time, and resources. If essential messaging applications need to be replaced with version upgrades or a solution from a different vendor, additional time for testing and training might be required. Certain key end-users might also need to roll up their sleeves and perform hands-on testing to make sure that the new products perform to their expectations. This might be the point in the application testing process that a decision is made that a more complete prototype testing phase is needed, and the lab would be expanded to more closely, or exactly, resemble the end-state of the migration. |
| < Day Day Up > |
EAN: 2147483647
Pages: 393