Post reply

SQL server 2005 log shipping

  • November 8, 2005 at 9:43 am

    #166199

    Does anyone know if SQL Server 2005 log shipping works between editions?  It appears from documentation it might but I wanted clarification.  Our setup is to use Enterprise Edition (EE) for the OLTP system and have addtional SQL server Standard Editions (SE) for reporting and I want to log ship from the EE database to the SE database is this compatible?

  • November 9, 2005 at 2:43 am

    #602969

    I, too, would also like to know the answer to this question. I am in a similar situation. Thanks.

    G. Milner

  • November 9, 2005 at 2:51 am

    #602971

    Log shipping does not work in SE. Only with EE

    The following links for your information:

    http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_log_shipping.asp

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/logship1.mspx

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/logship2.mspx

  • November 9, 2005 at 7:44 am

    #603014

    You can get logshipping to work on SE but you need speacilized scripts to do so. MS helped us with this back in SQL 7.0 for our high-availibility systems. (scripts are proprietary to our company otherwise I'd let you have them!)

     

  • November 9, 2005 at 8:10 am

    #603030

    In the SQL Server 2005 June CTP Books On Line under "Configuring Log Shipping" it says this:

    Log shipping has the following requirements:

    SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition, SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Edition, or SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition must be installed on all server instances involved in log shipping.

    The servers involved in log shipping should have the same case sensitivity settings. etc., etc.

    This gives the impression that the versions can be mixed but doesn't say so specifically.  Maybe the RTM Books On Line clarifies...

    Linda

  • November 9, 2005 at 9:32 am

    #603057

    Most 3rd party backup tools include methods for easier log shipping.  For example from the Red-Gate website:

    SQL Backup makes log shipping much simpler than native SQL Server log shipping and can be done in three easy steps 

    1. Set up a shared folder on the secondary server, accessible from the primary server.
    2. On the primary server, schedule SQL Backup to perform a transaction log backup periodically. Use the COPYTO option to copy the resulting backup files to the secondary server.
    3. On the secondary server, schedule SQL Backup to perform a transaction log restore using wildcards for file names and the MOVETO option to move the files to another folder after the restore process has completed.

    There is no need to set up a linked server, use SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition, nor write a single line of T-SQL script.

    I'm fairly certain other backup tools like Litespeed and Sonasoft have their own methods for log shipping as well.   Just trying to offer another alternative.  BTW doesn't SQL Server 2005 have a builtin feature like the COPYTO parameter in Red-gate's product? SQL Server 2005 lets you create mirrored backups and if these mirrored backups can be created on  shared network device maybe a scheduled job to to the restore can be used to do log shipping.

    Francis

  • November 9, 2005 at 10:54 am

    #603082

    Linda..

    I read the same thing that you quoted in your reply.  I am trying to get clarification around that b/c the way I interpret  the 'or' there may be wrong but it seems to imply that as long as one of those editions is on the server instance you can do it  (that is where the confusion lies)  Thanks.

    fhanlon..

    I am also checking into the red-gate and timepring (time data) tool.  Since data mirroring is delayed with 2005, I am trying to decide on a interim strategy to get a secondary server as close to real time as possible with 2005 (large dB system too).

     

    Thanks.

  • November 9, 2005 at 11:38 am

    #603089

    Just my 2 cents but log shipping is not really "real time"  I know you said "as close to real time", but keep in mind even if you take transaction log backups every 15 minutes, accounting for backup and restore times you may be as much as 20 minutes or more out on your standby server.  Replication may give you closer to real time copies of the database.  Log shipping is better for databases where there is a higher tolerance for being a little "out of date"  If this is acceptable to the business then log shipping may be a good way to go.

    Francis

  • November 9, 2005 at 12:20 pm

    #603095

    no I wasnt looking for it as a strategy with my OLTP it was for as reporting db redundancy strategy.

  • November 9, 2005 at 12:34 pm

    #603097

    Stacy,

    If your goal is to have a reporting database then you probably need to stick with log shipping.  I've read that with the new database mirroring in 2005 that the database is always in recovery mode and cannot be used for reading data.  I noticed it because I was thinking of trying it instead of log shipping as well.  Mirroring seems to be designed for failover purposes only.

    Linda

  • November 22, 2005 at 1:18 am

    #605152

    hi. i would like to know if log shipping in SQL 2000 can works well with SQL 2005 ?

    Thanks.

  • November 22, 2005 at 6:48 am

    #605212

    I happened to watch a 2005 web cast the other day and the presenter mentioned that Log Shipping was available in the 2005 Enterprise & Standard editions.  I asked whether or not the versions could be mixed and he said that the Standard Edition doesn't have all of the functionality that the Enterprise Edition does, so it would depend.  Maybe if you do some research on Log Shipping in general, you will find the differences.  If so, please post 🙂

    Sorry I didn't ask about Log Shipping between SQL 2000 and 2005.  Didn't think of it....

    Linda

  • November 23, 2005 at 2:32 am

    #605406

    Actually the MS way to do it is to use database mirroring AND snapshot databases

    Mirror you live DB, use snapshots of your mirror for reporting.

    I haven't tried it yet, but it would seem to make sense.

  • November 23, 2005 at 6:18 am

    #605435

    Don't forget that mirroring isn't actually available until sometime next year.  Also, if you have a very large database, you're going to need tons of disk space (for the mirrored db and snapshots).  I didn't particularly care for this method just to have a reporting database but that's just my personal opinion 🙂

    Linda

  • November 24, 2005 at 2:16 am

    #605643

    I can't see why it wouldn't, but the question should really be; why do you want mixed versions?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply