July 17, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Note: |
---|
Unless a backup is running, minimal logging is used under the simple recovery model. ...' Does this mean that BULK-LOGGED recovery mode is more efficient in terms of logging when database backup is running? Thanks, Igor |
July 17, 2007 at 3:28 pm
to avoid data loss you need to have full recovery model,as it logs the transactions fully....but the size will grow enormously in case of bulk insert operations......hence it is advisable to change the recovery to bulk logged recovery model if you are going to perform any huge bulk operations so that the log file growth will be minimal......but theres a possibility of data loss....
[font="Verdana"]- Deepak[/font]
July 18, 2007 at 1:24 am
No infact when running with bulk logged mode your backup size will be much higher than the size it was when on full recovery mode. You can give a try and check on this.
Cheers,
Sugeshkumar Rajendran
SQL Server MVP
http://sugeshkr.blogspot.com
July 18, 2007 at 11:56 am
Sugesh,
I am comparing IO footprint between bulk-logged and simple recovery modes. As BOL states:'...Unless a backup is running, minimal logging is used under the simple recovery model. '. That made me think that bulk-logged mode is more efficient when it comes to backup.
Thanks,
Igor
July 18, 2007 at 11:59 am
Deepak,
My original questions was about perfomance/IO footprint of simple vs. bulk-logged modes it comes to backups. I do understand the implications on data loss.
Thanks,
Igor
July 18, 2007 at 12:15 pm
The only database backup operation that can be run when you are in SIMPLE is FULL DATABASE Backup. In BULK-LOGGED you can take TLOG Backups
* Noel
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply