October 5, 2012 at 4:12 am
Hi all,
Now, i know that that SQL 2005 does not support backup compression, but i have a client that is currently still utilising this db engine and i'm putting together a little presentation on why they should upgrade to SQL 2012 etc etc 😉
One thing that i know they have a big problem with is backups.. the time it takes to do them, and once they are taking storing them! For reference, the production db that i am working with them on is circa 1.4Tb
Ok, so i want to show how different types of native backup compression could affect this size.. now i know anything we say here won't be 100% accurate as a lot of this is down to the data.. but it's db in a star schema format, so as i am sure you can imagine there is plenty of repeated / redundant data.
So, does anyone have any guestimations on at what ratio this could be compressed? i literally have nothing comparable to use.. perhaps one of you guys have worked with similarly sized dbs?
* Is 50% too optimistic?
* What is a safe estimate of compression that i could guarantee do you think? 20% ?
Regards
Chris
October 5, 2012 at 11:04 am
Their front-end application may be the reason for why they have remained on SQL Server 2005 all this time. As opposed to trying to convince them to go with an upgrade to 2012 or 2008/2008 R2, you may want to look at something like SQL Backup from Red Gate. The compression in their app is second to none, and it would be a greater selling point on a per server cost basis, as opposed to a complete DBMS upgrade (that will likely cause them to have to look at code that may be deprecated as well as their front-end application which will no doubt need to be recoded).
October 5, 2012 at 11:46 am
I would say that on a typical database, you can expect around 60%-70% compression, but it depends on the data. In general, the more string (char, varchar, nchar, nvarchar, text, ntext) data you have, the more it will compress.
It might be faster to just test how much backup compression you get using a copy of 2012 Developer Edition.
October 5, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Yeah, I think that's the best option isn't it.. Try it out on a test installation.
Oh btw they want to upgrade to SQL2012 I'm just adding more ammo with this backup thing.. This is primarily a reporting solution so the front end is just Excel 🙂
Cheers guys
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply