SQLServerCentral / Editorials / SQLServerCentral.com / Fooling SQL Server / Latest Posts

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Heather Sullivan — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:06:46 GMT

swirl80,Thank you so much for taking the time to provide this feedback! I will get with the team to make sure our message is more clear.If I can ever be of assistance to you please feel free to contact me at heather dot sullivan at idera dot com.Thanks again!Heather

RE: Fooling SQL Server

ChrisTaylor — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 05:18:47 GMT

[quote][b]Heather Sullivan (8/12/2010)[/b][hr]Idera's SQL virtual database is not read-only and allows inserts, updates, deletes, dbcc commands, etc. It supports SQLsafe (compressed and encrypted) and native backups including compressed native backups.[/quote]i was on the same understanding as Steve on this, i can't see anywhere on the idera product page for SQL Virtual Database that it says its writeable.......or am i being blind??[url=http://www.idera.com/Products/SQL-toolbox/SQL-virtual-database/]SQL-virtual-database link[/url]Extract from the product page:[quote]SQL virtual database is a powerful, new one-of-a-kind solution that lets you attach SQL Server backup files and [b]query them[/b] just like they were real databases[/quote]It mentions a lot about being able to object level recover and recover data if deleted/amended but i can't see anything about being able to run checkDB's etc. If that is the case then i'd get on the phone to the marketing department and get the site updated because i imagine steve and i are not the only people who've thought this about the product. This is the reason why we've recently put a proposal forward to purchase Redgate's product over Idera's cos we discredited Idera as we believed it was read functionality only.....

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:09:23 GMT

Fair point, Bill, and I do try to disclaim that Red Gate pays my salary when posting about things. I neglected it here, and I'll add that as well.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

SQLBill — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:16:24 GMT

Media is normally defined as an agency of mass communication. That is what this site is.For many years, this was an independent site. While Steve does a grand job of maintaining impartiality, the site is still a media outlet and is owned by RedGate. That can make it more difficult to maintain impartiality, which is why disclaimers are used when a media site discusses something that concerns their owner or a partner.Someone new to the site, could read Steve's editorial and after finding out that RedGate owns this site, take it that Steve is just 'shilling for his employers'. That impression could not only negatively impact this site, but also Steve. I have met Steve at a PASS show and dealt with him via this site for many years. He is impeccable and I value his opinions/thoughts. His editorials are thought provoking. I would like it to remain that way and would rather not see his reputation sullied because of an appearance that he is biased and shilling for those he works for. That said, I stick by my suggestion concerning the disclaimer.-SQLBill

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Nevyn — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:33:55 GMT

[quote][b]SQLBill (8/20/2010)[/b][hr]Steve,Good article, well written. However, as brought up it does give an appearance (notice I said appearance) of a conflict of interest.You highlight a RedGate product and guess what - Red Gate owns SQLServerCentral.com.While most members are aware of this, not everyone may know that RedGate bought this site. It's not really highlighted anywhere.I suggest doing like other media outlets do...include a disclaimer that RedGate owns this site when you write an article (pro or con) about one of their products.Just my 2 cents.-SQLBill[/quote]Here's the thing, this is not a media outlet. No claims of impartiality are made.And personally, Im willing to sit through the occasional shameless plug for the information and discussions that are fostered by this site. They gotta pay the bills, and Id much rather have that be through a little optional product pushing than through subscriptions.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

SQLBill — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:09:51 GMT

Steve,Good article, well written. However, as brought up it does give an appearance (notice I said appearance) of a conflict of interest.You highlight a RedGate product and guess what - Red Gate owns SQLServerCentral.com.While most members are aware of this, not everyone may know that RedGate bought this site. It's not really highlighted anywhere.I suggest doing like other media outlets do...include a disclaimer that RedGate owns this site when you write an article (pro or con) about one of their products.Just my 2 cents.-SQLBill

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:11:33 GMT

My apologies, Heather, for the implication. I was not aware that the Idera product had write capabilities. I have updated the editorial with a note as well.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Heather Sullivan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:15:12 GMT

I typically don't respond to posts but since 'advertising' is already a hot topic here....Idera's SQL virtual database is not read-only and allows inserts, updates, deletes, dbcc commands, etc. It supports SQLsafe (compressed and encrypted) and native backups including compressed native backups. Heather SullivanDirector, SQL Server ProductsIdera

RE: Fooling SQL Server

SQLRNNR — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:27:02 GMT

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Charles Kincaid — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:40:21 GMT

[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (8/11/2010)[/b][hr]The backup file isn't changed. What happens when you do the restore is that the mdf/ldf/ndf are created as sparse files. All reads from these files are redirected to the backup file, while the writes go to the sparse files. So the backup file is intact, but your changes are recorded, similar to a database snapshot.[/quote]Thanks for the clarification. I take it that in order to remove the restored database you DROP DATABASE just like anything else.So your backup checkup of doing the fast restore and DBCC does not go far enough, IMHO. One should go a step farther and use SQL Compare to match the objects and the contents. [b][i][u]Then[/u][/i][/b] you can say that your backups work.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

jeff.mason — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:36:55 GMT

If only it were just a growing log file. We have separate files for very large tables on separate LUNs and spindles, and I found that those files double in size on a reindex. Data files, not log files. The distribution works great in live, but then there's tons of empty space that the restore has to consume on a restore and that space isn't there in dev.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:29:46 GMT

The backup file isn't changed. What happens when you do the restore is that the mdf/ldf/ndf are created as sparse files. All reads from these files are redirected to the backup file, while the writes go to the sparse files. So the backup file is intact, but your changes are recorded, similar to a database snapshot.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

steve block — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:47:28 GMT

jeff,I found that if you back up the transaction log after each Index Rebuild you don't have the log growing very much at all.Steve

RE: Fooling SQL Server

SQLRNNR — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:28:14 GMT

[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (8/10/2010)[/b][hr]Apologies to anyone that feels I crossed the line into too much advertising. I was asked to write something on this product, and I think I failed to editorialize on it properly. I did think this particular feature was cool, and it is different. Idera's product is very cool as well, but it gives you a read only look. This one actually allows write back, so you could in fact, "mount" a database and test, or run your application against it and see where something failed. It's unique (for now), and I think a fairly innovative integration into SQL Server.[/quote]This seems like a cool feature.My concern, are you writing back to the BAK file? I would be very leery about being able to change data in the backup file. I am curious to know how the whole thing works.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

jeff.mason — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:06:19 GMT

Speaking not about the product but the idea behind the editorial, I can't tell you how painful the size issue is. It causes reindex havoc for me because in my last job I HAD to restore the DB on a weekly basis to an environment that didn't have enough disk space for the expanded DB (but did for the data) so I had to shrink the files after a reindex, even though I knew it could make more problems for the fragmentation. I had no choice as the dang thing wouldn't restore otherwise. Something like what the editorial is about is critical to support developement environments IMO.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

majorbloodnock — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:05:21 GMT

Reading the other replies, I think you're safe, Steve. Far better, though, that we let you know early (and when you haven't crossed the line) than after the fact.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Aaron C. Sentell — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:03:38 GMT

So that's the difference between the two products. Thanks for clarifying. That is a significant difference and one worth taking into consideration when making a purchase.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:00:12 GMT

Apologies to anyone that feels I crossed the line into too much advertising. I was asked to write something on this product, and I think I failed to editorialize on it properly. I did think this particular feature was cool, and it is different. Idera's product is very cool as well, but it gives you a read only look. This one actually allows write back, so you could in fact, "mount" a database and test, or run your application against it and see where something failed. It's unique (for now), and I think a fairly innovative integration into SQL Server.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Charles Kincaid — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:56:12 GMT

This might be a cool tool to save your bacon on a bad day. I see one danger that has not been pointed out. This could get abused by someone just letting it run like this in production. They might think "[i]Oh look. It's backed up all the time[/i]". Uh, no. It's not.As to advertorializing well... Look at editorial columns in newspapers. They advocate positions and promote ideas (if not products) all the time. So what if people you know happen to spit out something good. How can you keep silent?Shill this might turn out to be something needed when naught else will do. :rolleyes:

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Aaron C. Sentell — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:41:10 GMT

I thought the same thing that others did when I read this editorial: Why is it that this capability to restore a virtual database from a backup is being treated as a new capability when Idera's SQL Virtual Database product has been out for several months? Other than the fact that Red Gate sponsors this web site (which I very much appreciate), what is it that makes Red Gate's product worthy of highlight over Idera? Is there something I'm missing that makes it that much better?Aaron

RE: Fooling SQL Server

Steph Locke — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:41:09 GMT

It's a bit on the heavy handed side in terms of the endorsement but it is an interesting concept- I was going to take a look to see if it might be beneficial for use during development phases of changes. When I went to click on the link however, the site won't redirect me. Time to google.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

James Stover — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 04:45:47 GMT

In the publishing game, they call this an "advertorial". You've done it justice.

RE: Fooling SQL Server

majorbloodnock — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:18:30 GMT

I think this is one of those grey areas. I like my editorials to provoke thought, not to advertise. In this case, I think there is enough substance in the editorial for it to work, but I think it's a pretty close run thing. Taking the editorial in isolation, I'm glad I had the chance to read it, but I hope this doesn't signal a subtle shift towards using editorials as an extra bit of advertising real estate in the daily newsletter.

Fooling SQL Server

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:37:53 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]Fooling SQL Server[/B]