|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:37 PM
Points: 2,609,
Visits: 768
|
|
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Quick and Dirty DR Solution Using Robocopy
Scott Duncan
MARCUS. Why dost thou laugh? It fits not with this hour. TITUS. Why, I have not another tear to shed; --Titus Andronicus, William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:09 AM
Points: 2,
Visits: 2
|
|
On top of using RoboCopy, use RoboCopyPlus, which will let you email job results with condensed logfile, and inserts entries in the windows eventlog with job result error levels. See www.robocopyplus.com
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Rookie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:32 AM
Points: 42,
Visits: 170
|
|
Be aware that using the /z switch (restartable mode) for Robocopy slows it down massively cant tell you how much but something like half speed. You are better off not using /z in general and just recopying the whole file again in the rare event it fails part way through.
I have just been doing something identical to this but I found Robocopy to be far too slow for large files ie > 20GB. It also seems to cause file corruption (silently) somewhere in the range 30GB to 70GB. I can copy 30GB files but not 70GB files. You can prove that a file is identical (or not) easily using the Microsoft utility called FCIV which creates a hash value for a file:
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=11533
There is a much quicker way to copy very large files using a Microsoft utility called ESEUTIL. I have just spent my entire weekend migrating 280GB of backup files across a network using this. It runs much faster than robocopy and does not corrupt the files.
Don’t believe me about ESEUTIL? See this for evidence that using ESEUTIL is a sensible thing to do (bottom of page post by Jacob Luebbers Posted 5/22/2008 2:05 AM:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic495042-357-1.aspx
(also see the other posts he refers to – I have seen other posts on same topic too)
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Eights!
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:47 AM
Points: 847,
Visits: 770
|
|
That is a nice, thank you.
I am using something simmilar but through windows tasks.
Iulian
|
|
|
|
|
Old Hand
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:23 PM
Points: 361,
Visits: 783
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:37 PM
Points: 2,609,
Visits: 768
|
|
Sean Elliott (UK) (11/7/2011) Be aware that using the /z switch (restartable mode) for Robocopy slows it down massively cant tell you how much but something like half speed. You are better off not using /z in general and just recopying the whole file again in the rare event it fails part way through.
I have just been doing something identical to this but I found Robocopy to be far too slow for large files ie > 20GB. It also seems to cause file corruption (silently) somewhere in the range 30GB to 70GB. I can copy 30GB files but not 70GB files. You can prove that a file is identical (or not) easily using the Microsoft utility called FCIV which creates a hash value for a file:
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=11533
There is a much quicker way to copy very large files using a Microsoft utility called ESEUTIL. I have just spent my entire weekend migrating 280GB of backup files across a network using this. It runs much faster than robocopy and does not corrupt the files.
Don’t believe me about ESEUTIL? See this for evidence that using ESEUTIL is a sensible thing to do (bottom of page post by Jacob Luebbers Posted 5/22/2008 2:05 AM:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic495042-357-1.aspx
(also see the other posts he refers to – I have seen other posts on same topic too)
I've heard about ESEUTIL but never been able to get my hands on a copy to try it out.
Scott Duncan
MARCUS. Why dost thou laugh? It fits not with this hour. TITUS. Why, I have not another tear to shed; --Titus Andronicus, William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:57 AM
Points: 423,
Visits: 1,953
|
|
I thought RichCopy replaced RoboCopy as the copy utility of choice. Or am I comparing apples and oranges?
Cursors are useful if you don't know SQL
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Rookie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:32 AM
Points: 42,
Visits: 170
|
|
You can get eseutil from the web if you look via google "eseutil download". It's installed with MS Exchange but all you need is 2 files eseutil.exe and eseutil.dll and they are small. If you are on W2k8 you can use xcopy with the new /j flag which does the same type of unbuffered copying apparently. I'm not on w2k8.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, October 19, 2012 12:02 PM
Points: 3,
Visits: 37
|
|
Guys,
Considering an online database, with users transactioning on it, is this procedure able to create a copy of the database that I can use on another server?
For instance, if server1 crashes and I try to attach the copy on server2 using the file I've synced this way, is this going to work?
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Rookie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:32 AM
Points: 42,
Visits: 170
|
|
Yes the copy will work OK so long as server1 and server2 are both not using the mdf and ldf files whilst they are copying over.
Note that mdf and ldf files are many times larger than a backup especially if backup compression is used. You would be advised to zip (ie compress) the files before copying them across the network.
It might be the case that server2 will already need to have previously had the same database online so that it already knows which ndf and ldf to use. Recovery might not happen when attaching databases (I could be wrong). Recovery will definitly work if SQL is started with the right files in the right place ie as it has previously known.
Try it.
|
|
|
|