January 6, 2011 at 8:51 pm
We have upto 1TB DBs in our environment and total size of all the backups reach upto 48TB. Any heads up whether Litespeed is still better than Native with compression?
-Lucky
January 6, 2011 at 8:55 pm
both have the different compression algorithm. And I personally prefer litespeed.
----------
Ashish
January 6, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Comparison between Litespeed Backup and Native Backup Compression
-Michael
-MJ
Please do not print mails and docx unless it is absolutely necessary. Spread environmental awareness.
January 6, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Thanks for the post, Michael.
-lucky
January 7, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Thanks Michaeljasson
January 7, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I prefer LiteSpeed over SQL native compression. I have been using this for couple of my projects. LiteSpeed provides various compressions levels to use. I went with default which is 1. It saves little over 80% in terms of disk space. LiteSpeed also has integrated Log Shipping in case if you need and also lot of other features. Good Luck.
Thanks,
Satish
January 7, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Interesting reading.. But at ~$1500/server I don't think I could stomache it for any but the most obscenely large database servers.
The smaller backup files than native with compression is nice but only a partial justification for purchase.
For SQL 2005 I would be a bit more open, but the price is still a deterent..
CEWII
January 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
A big win for Litespeed is the ability to do object level restores. Restoring a single table or proc is much easier than restoring an entire TB sized database and extracting the single table.
January 7, 2011 at 4:30 pm
JeremyE (1/7/2011)
A big win for Litespeed is the ability to do object level restores. Restoring a single table or proc is much easier than restoring an entire TB sized database and extracting the single table.
As far as single table, I'll give you that.. Out hosts Red-Gate has a tool that lets you mount the backup like a database and access it directly, very cool..
As far a sproc restore, I'm taking the position that if you have to go to the backup to get source code, that code control is likely an issue in your organization. The database is a recipient of the code not a storage location.. Sorry..
CEWII
January 7, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Elliott Whitlow (1/7/2011)
As far a sproc restore, I'm taking the position that if you have to go to the backup to get source code, that code control is likely an issue in your organization. The database is a recipient of the code not a storage location.. Sorry..
CEWII
No reason to be sorry. I was merely highlighting the feature set and differences between Litepseed backups and compressed native SQL backups.
If you don't need object level restore, variable compression, or want to pay $1500/server then compressed native SQL backups will work just as well.
January 7, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Thanks Everyone here. I shall prefer litespeed in my env.
Litespeed Link really helped.
January 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Native compression is good but if you enable TDE compression is negated. Litespeed or SQLBackup will compress and encrypt your backups
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
February 23, 2015 at 11:52 am
Anybody have performance details based on newer version of SQL Server, I heard that SQL 2012 and 2014 has better compression now that is comporable to LiteSpeed.
I suppose could take a backup myself and see the compression details. Just wanted to find out before I do this research myself.
Thanks,
N
February 25, 2015 at 8:00 am
Even with 2008R2 we seemed to get better performance natively than with LiteSpeed - LiteSpeed really saved us with SQL 2000 and 2005, but the day we got 2008R2 - boy that was fast!
Stats for a 120GB database, full backup:-
SQL 2000 native - 90 minutes
LiteSpeed - 30 minutes
2008R2 native - 10 minutes
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply