Question
Why am I getting an error when I try to connect to SharePoint 2019 or SharePoint Server Subscription Edition in a FIPS-enabled environment?
Answer
Content Matrix uses some assemblies for FIPS compliance that are not supported for certain SharePoint 2019 and SharePoint Server Subscription Edition connections.
For a remote object model (MEWS) connection (displays for the top node) for SharePoint 2019:
Client found response content type of 'text/html; charset=utf-8', but expected 'text/xml'. The request failed with the error message: -- <!DOCTYPE html> <html>
For a local object model (OM) connection (displays at the item level for SharePoint 2019 and SharePoint Server Subscription Edition):
The type initializer for 'Microsoft.SharePoint.ApplicationRuntime.SPRequestModule' threw an exception
In addition, errors will display in Browser View and Items View.
The workaround for SharePoint 2019 is to connect using a SharePoint Database connection. You will not, however, also be able to make an external server connection.
For SharePoint Server Subscription Edition, you can connect using a database or remote object model (MEWS) connection.
Question
Is there a way to determine what the status is for a migration that is running in the background?
Answer
Yes, this can be done. This is more of a workaround method that should achieve the same results.
For this method to work users must create a new batch file for the job list, and store it in a commonly accessible area on the file system. Give this job list the same name as the one that is, or will be, running in the background. After the main job is running in the background, the new job file can be opened in any users instance of Content Matrix. When the new job is opened, users will be given a snapshot view of the job in progress (this is not a real-time update).
For example, let's say that a job file called "Big Job" is running in the background, and another user wants to determine the progress for this job. They would create a new Job file, and call it "Big Job" to match the existing (running) job and then place that file in a commonly accessible area on the file system. Next, they would open this new job file (the copy) in their instance of Content Matrix. This should give the user a snapshot view of the original "Big Job" migration, in process, as it continues to run in the background.
Users can use this method to quickly determine how far along the migration is, and it's status.
Question
I am having issues migrating MySites, more specifically the User Profiles that are associated with MySites. What could be causing this issue, and is there a solution for it?
Answer
In most cases Content Matrix can migrate MySites along with the User Profile data, however, there are cases in which this data may have trouble migrating across.
MySites can use one of four possible naming conventions in the MySite host, and these naming conventions can affect how MySite and User Profile data can be returned. These naming conventions are:
·Domain_Username - This naming convention requires that the MySite name needs to be specified as the same name for the user who it belongs to. The Domain_Username format is used to name the MySite. For example if user User_1 had a MySite, the MySite would be named User_1.
·Unknown - The naming convention for this type is an unknown format. As a result all Content Matrix can return is the information we get from the SharePoint Object Model (OM). This format is returned if end users have modified the naming convention to a custom format. This is usually the naming convention that causes the most issues.
·Username_CollisionsDomain - This naming convention uses a User name format (and not a Domain_Username format). When migrating MySites, Content Matrix will use the Domain_Username format if a MySite with the User name (under the User name format) already exists.
·Username_CollisionError - This naming convention will be used if the Username_CollisionsDomain format is being used and an exception is thrown because a site with the same user name already exists.
In the case of the Unknown naming format, Content Matrix may not be able to preserve the naming convention, in which case the migration of the MySite should fail.
In this type of situation there is a workaround method that users can use. Instead of migrating the MySite as a MySite, you can migrate it as a regular SharePoint site collection (to any target location). Once this is done you can then manually link the User Profile to the appropriate site collection or site.
Question
What is the optimal setup for best performance for Content Matrix?
Answer
The optimal setup for performance with Content Matrix is to have the application itself installed on the target server, and the Metalogix Extensions Web Service (MEWS) installed on the source server. Then use a SharePoint Database (DB) connection to connect to the source. The Metalogix Extensions Web Service would not need to be installed on the target since the application itself would be installed, allowing for a direct connection to the SharePoint Object Model (OM).
There are a few trade-offs for using the DB connection for the source. In these cases you will be limited with: no write access, no server level connections or actions, and the potential to run into issues when dealing with custom site templates. If these are trade-offs that you are not willing to deal with then it is recommended to connect to the source using a Metalogix Extensions Web Service connection.
The main issue that can cause slowdown with the Content Matrix Console is copying file structure. If the content that is being migrated contains a large file structure the migration will go slower because Content Matrix will try to recreate this structure.
For example, if we have two sites that contain the same amount of data, Site A and Site B, and Site A uses a more complex file structure than Site B, the migration of Site A will run slower then the migration of Site B. Even though these sites contain the same amount of data Content Matrix will require more time to recreate the complicated structure of Site A, resulting in Site B finishing it's migration first.
