Exercise caution with Zimbra..

[cheros]

Originally Posted by joarvat

I am or plan to specialise in several Open Source technologies like Joomla, SugarCRM, and Zimbra just fits the bill.

I would like to point out that the current Zimbra approach does not fit well with the SME model as it wants a whole system for itself. Although I can appreciate the "appliance" approach and the motives behind it, it does conflict with the resources that a small to medium company has. The expected answer would be virtualisation, but to me that is just an excuse not to address the problem.

It ought to be perfectly possible to set up ONE database in MySQL for Zimbra, ONE area for file storage and ONE virtual instance in Apache to run Zimbra. Instead it takes the whole box. The Zimbra project can do better IMHO.

Having said that, I like the system a lot, and am in the process of moving all my email and doc management to a commercial provider in Switzerland who (by nature of their location and the clients they have) operates under both Data Protection and Bank Secrecy, the only change I may make is to buy extra spam filtering from Postini (now Google). And it deals with the problem highlighted above as well

[dijichi2]

this is a misconception. it doesn't take the whole box, I have it installed on many boxes that also run all sorts of other things. it does come with it's own versions of apache/sql/ldap/etc, but they are all self contained in /opt/zimbra, and largely run or can be configured to run on non-conflicting ports.

[cheros]

Originally Posted by dijichi2

this is a misconception. it doesn't take the whole box, I have it installed on many boxes that also run all sorts of other things. it does come with it's own versions of apache/sql/ldap/etc, but they are all self contained in /opt/zimbra, and largely run or can be configured to run on non-conflicting ports.

That is, however, exactly what I mean. Why can it not integrate with already existing services out of the box (it's not impossible, but it's not exactly made easy either)? To run two full database engines is a waste of resources, and so is two wholly isolated Apache sessions and LDAP engines.

Enfin, it's no longer my problem

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by cheros

That is, however, exactly what I mean. Why can it not integrate with already existing services out of the box (it's not impossible, but it's not exactly made easy either)?

It's specifically designed like that so the components can be tuned for the Zimbra performance and integration, you won't get that on individual components already installed on the server.

[Bill Brock]

It seems like it makes for easier installation, management and configuration for those like me that aren't Linux experts.

By the way Cheros, I notice you are running Open SuSE. It won't be supported in the next release. If this is an issue for you like it is for me let your voice be heard on these forums.

[Jbrabander]

Originally Posted by Bill Brock

By the way Cheros, I notice you are running Open SuSE. It won't be supported in the next release. If this is an issue for you like it is for me let your voice be heard on these forums.

There's been a, shall we say "lively", thread regarding this (and other OSs) in another part of the forum.

What does Zimbra have against OpenSUSE

Basically, it sounds like it's a numbers thing. Not enough people are downloading the SuSE version to warrant upkeep. But I think jholder (a Zimbra employee) was going to ask the PMs about continuing the SuSE support. No guarantees that it'll continue, but he was going to ask them to look into it. Sounds like user dijichi2 may even make a build for OpenSuSE 11 if there's enough call for it.

[bigmudcake]

Originally Posted by cheros

I would like to point out that the current Zimbra approach does not fit well with the SME model as it wants a whole system for itself. Although I can appreciate the "appliance" approach and the motives behind it, it does conflict with the resources that a small to medium company has. The expected answer would be virtualisation, but to me that is just an excuse not to address the problem.

It ought to be perfectly possible to set up ONE database in MySQL for Zimbra, ONE area for file storage and ONE virtual instance in Apache to run Zimbra. Instead it takes the whole box. The Zimbra project can do better IMHO.

Having said that, I like the system a lot, and am in the process of moving all my email and doc management to a commercial provider in Switzerland who (by nature of their location and the clients they have) operates under both Data Protection and Bank Secrecy, the only change I may make is to buy extra spam filtering from Postini (now Google). And it deals with the problem highlighted above as well

I am a bit supprised by your view. There are many advantages having Zimbra use its own systems rather than OS supplied.

1. A big advantage is security, particularly since from your post security must be important if you operate under "Data Protection and Bank Secrecy" is the fact that Zimbra cannot be weakened by other systems sharing the same MySQL/Apache/LDAP sub-systems. I.E. a rogue user that has hacked into your website cannot not bring down Zimbra at the same time.

2. Stability. Zimbra uses consistent versions of MySQL/Apache/LDAP and upgrades and tests against them ensuring stability. There is nothing worse than upgrading say MySQL and finding it breaks Zimbra because of the changes.

3. Ease of install, backup and portability. In the even of a disaster, its nice to know that you can get a backup copy running very quickly without needing to spend hours reinstalling and updating MySQL/Apache/LDAP sub-systems individually before you re-install Zimbra.

My only issue is that the defaults should use "non-standard" ports to ensure even better security, and would play friendly with OS installed versions of MySQL/Apache/LDAP out of the box without the default conflicts.