Part two – Tackling data migrations – Manual vs 3rd party tools

Part two – Tackling data migrations – Manual vs 3rd party tools

Continuing our deep-dive into native EV vs 3rd Party tools, in this final part of our 2-part blog series Salim Othman, Head of Migrations at bluesource, takes us through project timelines, resourcing, reporting, troubleshooting, mailbox quotas and the considerations which should take place before your migration begins.

Project Timelines:

Manual – Native EV

Manual migrations are slower than automated migrations, FACT. It is difficult to ascertain how long any migration will take. It relies on several factors – number of users, amount of data, location of data, infrastructure and stakeholder management. By using the manual tool within EV you are adding another time draining resource to the mix. The native tool has a limit on concurrent threads that you can run to your migrated data. It uses the EV application resource for restores and interacts with Exchange via MAPI protocol.

Vs

Automated (3rd Party)

If you use an automated tool you can speed up migration. Multithreading migration helps with timelines and the ability to build multiple migration servers – all working independently and targeting specific users. This enables you to migrate 100’s and 1000’s of users at the same time.

Resourcing

Manual – Native EV

Manual migrations are a strain on internal resources and require a team of dedicated engineers to oversee the migration. Checking the data and monitoring the overall process takes a lot of time and can be very tedious when you have a full-time job to do.

Vs

Automated (3rd Party)

Using a 3rd party tool, and having a subject matter expert at your disposal will ensure that your migration is seamless. Freeing up your internal resources and avoiding a downturn in productivity.

Reporting:

Manual – Native EV

Using a manual tool within EV only provides you with a basic text file showing the restore parameters and overall outcome without item level details.

Vs

Automated (3rd Party)

However, using a 3rd party tool will provide you with a full audit trail and chain of custody report. You will also receive item level reporting, identifying which items failed to migrate for any user and the reason for its failure.

Troubleshooting:

Manual – Native EV

Manual restores do not have a failure report. The only way to see errors is to filter through EV’s event logs. There is no separation between errors from the restoration or individual users attempting normal restore.

Vs

Automated (3rd Party)

Error reporting is freely available for analysis and investigation. Failed items can be excluded on the next attempt or retried once the potential issue has been identified or fixed. The migration software will log a failed item and move to the next item within the archive, keeping the process running smoothly.

Mailbox Quotas

Manual – Native EV

With EV mailbox restores back into your on-premise mailbox. You will need to provision enough disk space on the Exchange server to accommodate disabling of archiving and restoration of data.

Vs

Automated (3rd Party)

You can migrate data directly into the O365 in-place archive or into a primary mailbox after it has been migrated into O365.

Cost

Manual

Manual migration results in user inconvenience and can incur additional costs for internal staff or a contractor to perform your migration.

Vs

Automated (3rd Party)

Automated migrations with a 3rd party mean that your cost is known upfront and is outcome based.

Whether you’re moving from Google to Microsoft, Migrating Mail from Exchange to Enterprise Vault, migrating into Mimecast or looking to move from one cloud platform to another, we can help. We’ve been delivering seamless end-to-end migration projects for over 17 years. If you’d like to chat to us about your migration, drop us a line here.

Blogs,Managed Services,

29th November 2017

Isobell Lawrence


back to knowledge hub
»