March 11, 2009 at 10:32 am
I am trying to decide which backup method to convince my boss to continue using. Our IT admin who is not familiar with SQL or d/r situations is in charge of BackupExec and uses this to backup all of our SQL server databases. I was told to only use one database method and remove the maintenance plan for backups. My boss's reason for only using one method was he thought redundancy was unnecessary.
My question is should I convince my boss to let me have access to BackupExec so I can help create a better backup plan and work on a disaster recovery plan or should I convince my boss to stop using BackupExec and start doing native sql server backups.
If I had my way I would choose native sql backups, but I think they want to stay with BackupExec, I just do not know what to say in order to support my reason to switch.
Adam Durr
Remote DBA support
www.bluegecko.net
March 11, 2009 at 11:09 am
Seems like BackUpExec supports compressed back up of SQL Server and Point in time recovery for SQL Server as well.
The problem with Native back up is its bulky. That is the main problem. In SQL 2008, it can do compressed back ups and encrypted Back ups.
In this case I think there is a case of both tools being good. Native and BackUpExec.
-Roy
March 11, 2009 at 11:16 am
Good points and thank you for the reply.
Do I have a case then to use both backup solutions or should I argue to have access to BackupExec?
Adam Durr
Remote DBA support
www.bluegecko.net
March 11, 2009 at 11:22 am
I think you should have both. One thing I did not see in the website of BackUpExec is using it to set up a warm stand by or Verification of Back Up process. That is the most important thing that needs to be done when you have a back up plan.
-Roy
March 11, 2009 at 11:43 am
Most people I know like BackupExec (Server Guys) because they don't like the idea of file backups going to disk then to tape. They rather have it go directly to tape.
So is backups going directly to tape bad? I don't think so but if you don't have access to do your own restores then it is useless. Backupexec lets you do full, t-log and diff backups. But I find the SQL Client interface for doing restores a bit annoying and clunky.
So I prefer SQL backups over 3rd party vendor solutions.
Mohit.
Mohit K. Gupta, MCITP: Database Administrator (2005), My Blog, Twitter: @SQLCAN[/url].
Microsoft FTE - SQL Server PFE
* Some time its the search that counts, not the finding...
* I didn't think so, but if I was wrong, I was wrong. I'd rather do something, and make a mistake than be frightened and be doing nothing. :smooooth:[/font]
March 11, 2009 at 12:04 pm
In case of a restore the answer I have been given is to perform a backup if the server is accessible. If the server is in a state that can not be accessed then I would request the backup from the Server Admin. This seems not the correct way to go about this, so I am trying to think of ways to justify what has to be done for a good disaster recovery scenario.
My thought was to go with what Roy Ernest said and use both BackupExec and native sql backups. My problem was justifying the need for two backup solutions. I think I can justify it though with hot standby server support and quicker database recovery solution.
Thanks Mohit and Roy Ernest. If you have any other ideas please let me know.
Adam Durr
Remote DBA support
www.bluegecko.net
March 11, 2009 at 12:15 pm
climbingbum (3/11/2009)
In case of a restore the answer I have been given is to perform a backup if the server is accessible. If the server is in a state that can not be accessed then I would request the backup from the Server Admin. This seems not the correct way to go about this, so I am trying to think of ways to justify what has to be done for a good disaster recovery scenario.
Uhmmm I guess you can do that using the copy_only function with SQL 2005 but what about 2000 servers (if you have any)? The reason is it breaks you backup chain so lets say you have full nightly backup, diff afternoon backup followed by t-log backups every hour. Which all go to take no problem; but you do a full backup in middle and restore it on another server. Now you delete that full backup. Next day you disovery something happend in the afternoon and you need to recovery lost information? But guess what tapes can't get the information because the t-log backups will require that full backup you took outside normal operations... So it creates a bad recovery senerio .. IMO.
Running the backup outside the regular backup and not having access to your nightly backup doesn't seem like a wise chooice? The one thing I am not sure about BACKUPEXEC backups is can we use those to do single page restores or piecemeal restores.
Mohit K. Gupta, MCITP: Database Administrator (2005), My Blog, Twitter: @SQLCAN[/url].
Microsoft FTE - SQL Server PFE
* Some time its the search that counts, not the finding...
* I didn't think so, but if I was wrong, I was wrong. I'd rather do something, and make a mistake than be frightened and be doing nothing. :smooooth:[/font]
March 11, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Thank you that is exactly what I needed to hear 🙂
Adam Durr
Remote DBA support
www.bluegecko.net
March 11, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Here is my .02. I'd prefer to do native backups to local disks, then backup the backup files to tape or other remote storage media. Reason, it is faster than direct to tape backups and if I need to accomplish a restore I have the files (or at least the most recet ones) readily available with no need to go back to tapes.
March 11, 2009 at 1:00 pm
climbingbum (3/11/2009)
In case of a restore the answer I have been given is to perform a backup if the server is accessible. If the server is in a state that can not be accessed then I would request the backup from the Server Admin. This seems not the correct way to go about this, so I am trying to think of ways to justify what has to be done for a good disaster recovery scenario.
This part is something that bothers me very much. You dont have to be online 24/7? They have no problem with the DB going down for hours?
For example, The DB goes down in the middle of the night. You have to wait for the Admin to retreive the file for you while you sit there twidling your fingers since you cant do anything without the back up?
Just imagine, You are not able to get in touch with the Admin. What are you supposed to do to bring the DB back online?
-Roy
March 11, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Roy Ernest (3/11/2009)
climbingbum (3/11/2009)
In case of a restore the answer I have been given is to perform a backup if the server is accessible. If the server is in a state that can not be accessed then I would request the backup from the Server Admin. This seems not the correct way to go about this, so I am trying to think of ways to justify what has to be done for a good disaster recovery scenario.This part is something that bothers me very much. You dont have to be online 24/7? They have no problem with the DB going down for hours?
For example, The DB goes down in the middle of the night. You have to wait for the Admin to retreive the file for you while you sit there twidling your fingers since you cant do anything without the back up?
Just imagine, You are not able to get in touch with the Admin. What are you supposed to do to bring the DB back online?
These specific databases are not production and can be offline for updates during the night. During the daytime some downtime is ok, but no more than 1 hour. I agree with the last part having to get a backup from the admin adds time to getting the database back online especially if they are unreachable.
Adam Durr
Remote DBA support
www.bluegecko.net
March 11, 2009 at 8:36 pm
One problem I had with BackupExec is the limited functionality when doing restores. For instance, I had a large production database, with several data files. For example Data1.mdf on the E drive, Data2.ndf on the F drive and Index.ndf on the G drive. I wanted to restore to the training environment on another server, and put the data files on D, E and H. BackupExec would not support restoring to drive letters that were different from the original backup location !!! Totally unacceptable for me.
March 11, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I'd run native backups and let BackupExec grab those files and move them off. I never found the agents to be stable enough, and even 1% failure is too much.
March 11, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (3/11/2009)
I'd run native backups and let BackupExec grab those files and move them off. I never found the agents to be stable enough, and even 1% failure is too much.
Me too, and many others based on earlier threads.
March 13, 2009 at 8:13 am
we've been using Netbackup Enterprise for almost a decade and it's great. one place to schedule everything, you can control which backups go on which tapes, easy to search the catalog, it still writes everything to msdb and uses native sql commands to perform the backup, you can encrypt the backups at the backup device, cheaper than upgrading to sql for compression. right now wer're using old DLT tapes and in the next month we're buying a new backup robot that's going to be LTO-4 with 800GB/1600GB tapes. Tapes are only $50 each.
for restores it creates a script file that takes 5 minutes to modify if you want to change drive paths
we've been using the SQL agent with it and the biggest problem i've seen is people use netbackup or backupexec with no agent. buy the agent.
we even looked at SAN backups this time and doing them right over the fiber, but a bit too expensive. in the next year or so we're going 10 gigabit and will use that to improve backup speeds
only downside is if you go on an interview and they ask you about native sql backups you have to look at the guy and ask him why?
only rule with Veritas/Symantec Netbackup is don't use the latest version right away. wait a little while before upgrading
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply