700 GB Database

1. I have an issue regarding backup in Microsoft SQL SERVER 2000. I have a database with 700GB size. What could be the best solution(s) for backup.
2. I have 72 GB tape storage device, if I start the same 700 GB backupon 72GB tape device, will it be ask for the next tape after completingone 72GB tape, till 700GB.
3. Tape backup will make slow the transaction ?

[372 byte] By [M_Aamir] at [2008-3-7]

«« return value of empty list
»» Problems using CDC::BitBlt

# 1

Check out SQL Lightspeed.

skeader at 2007-8-30 >

top of Msdn Tech,SQL Server,SQL Server Disaster Recovery and Availability...

# 2

I recommend that you configure your database to use filegroups so you can create filegroup backups. For an understanding of implementing filegroups, checkout http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=sqlserver&seqNum=42&rl=1

bass_player at 2007-8-30 >

# 3

That is hard to say.

1. What are your recoverability requirements?

2. How volitile is the data?

3. What hardware is available for backups?

Those are for starters.

MichaelHotek at 2007-8-30 >

# 4

Just a suggestion

For about $700 US you can buy a 1000GB external HDD

That run on USB 2.0 480 Mbits per second

Check it out at the following address

http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10128

John_John at 2007-8-30 >

# 5

I'm going to be setting up a server which will have a pretty large database - I'm thinking it might end up being 700GB. I was currious what the specs of the hardware you were running it on were? Any help would be appreciated. thanks.

DavidMcPeak at 2007-8-30 >

# 6

Another couple of points to consider here:

SQL Backup only copies the extents that are actually allocated. So, if you have a 700GB database that is 50% full, the backup will be ~350GB, not 700GB.

All current tape hardware that I am aware of does hardware-based compression on the drive. So, that 350GB would typically take up far less space on tape than it would seem. If you're going direct to tape, I'd suggest trying it out and seeing how many tapes it actually takes.

Doing backup to disk (possibly compressed using a 3rd-party product such as LiteSpeed) gives you the advantages of faster backup speeds, and significantly faster restore speeds. As has been pointed out, disk storage can be obtained at a very reasonable price these days.

KevinFarlee at 2007-8-30 >

# 7

While there is a significant difference in the time it takes to backup due to writing significantly less into the backup because of compression, I've found ZERO different in restore speeds across more than 5000 different databases. (It would be bad if the restore performance degraded.)

MichaelHotek at 2007-8-30 >

SQL Server Hot Topic

SQL Server New Topic

SQL Server

Java / MSDN / Linux Tech / PHP Tech / MSDN DotNet / MSDN TECH / Health Library / Programmers Tech / visual basic Tech / Developer Tech / Ipod faqs / Msdn China Tech

700 GB Database document under SQL Server Disaster Recovery and Availability classified...

700 GB Database

SQL Server Hot Topic

SQL Server New Topic

SQL Server

Site Classified