Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12

Reindexing Tables used in Log Shipping Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 2:42 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:59 AM
Points: 58, Visits: 290
Log Ship will be insync once you follow steps.

I suggest, pl verify on test server for surity. We always do.
Post #1254607
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 3:45 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:34 AM
Points: 1,307, Visits: 2,476
I am not sure why people are so much ineterested in breaking log chain by changing the reocovery model to SIMPLE, just to avoid the log file growth during Re-indexing.

Use Bulk Logged Recovery Model instead to avoid the log file growth.
Benefits:
1. Full & Bulk Logged recovery models are interchangable. Interchanging Full & Bulk Logged recovery model doesn't break the log chain.
2. Once the reindexing is done you don't need to take the full/diff backups & restoring them on secondary.
3. You just need to switch back to Full recovery model again after the reindexing is done. Log backups will continue successfully after that & you should leave it all to SQL Server log shipping jobs.



Sujeet Singh
Post #1254634
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 3:54 AM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:54 AM
Points: 42,440, Visits: 35,494
Please note: 5 year old thread.


Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1254642
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 4:06 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:34 AM
Points: 1,307, Visits: 2,476
Actuly 2 new posts got added in the same thread today prior to my response, so replying to them


Sujeet Singh
Post #1254648
Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2012 7:22 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:52 AM
Points: 52, Visits: 214
GilaMonster (2/20/2012)
Please note: 5 year old thread.


SOME POSTS in this thread are indeed over two years old, but the one immediately preceding yours answers a lot of questions I was going to pose (as I am looking after log shipping of over 50 dbs on SS2K) on the forum.

Kudos to the man. :)
Post #1285632
Posted Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:31 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 7:14 PM
Points: 1, Visits: 115
I also have a very large database with very sizeable clustered indexed tables. I've been looking for a way around the bloating of logs and keeping tranlog backups at a decent size. The only way I have found to do this efficiently is to spread the workload throughout the week instead of doing one-shot reindexing/reorg of the database on the weekend.

Also, one comment about Devine's post. Step #2 is fine, but remember that switching to bulk-logged recovery most often increases the size of the transaction log backups (although it does keep transaction log size smaller). This is because the pages that are modified during reindexing are marked in the transaction log, then when the tranlog backups occur .. then all of the pages marked are copied into the tranlog backup. Even when using 2008+ compression, redgate, or litespeed .. these log backups can very easily clog a WAN connection.
Post #1420366
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 1:01 AM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:54 AM
Points: 42,440, Visits: 35,494
jblovesthegym (4/18/2012)
SOME POSTS in this thread are indeed over two years old, but the one immediately preceding yours answers a lot of questions I was going to pose (as I am looking after log shipping of over 50 dbs on SS2K) on the forum.


Worth noting that the info given in the post you mention is lacking a few very critical points.

Maybe take a read through this before you go off and use bulk logged recovery. It does have some downsides, it's not always interchangeable with full recovery (eg when there's mirroring), there are some risks to running it and it won't reduce the size of your log backups.

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Recovery+Model/89664/



Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1420413
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:25 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:34 AM
Points: 1,307, Visits: 2,476
GilaMonster (2/15/2013)
jblovesthegym (4/18/2012)
SOME POSTS in this thread are indeed over two years old, but the one immediately preceding yours answers a lot of questions I was going to pose (as I am looking after log shipping of over 50 dbs on SS2K) on the forum.


Worth noting that the info given in the post you mention is lacking a few very critical points.

Maybe take a read through this before you go off and use bulk logged recovery. It does have some downsides, it's not always interchangeable with full recovery (eg when there's mirroring), there are some risks to running it and it won't reduce the size of your log backups.

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Recovery+Model/89664/


You are right Gail. Indeed, I should have added in my post that using the bulk logged recovery model will not reduce the size of log backups. It will only protect the transaction log files from growing very large without breaking the log chain.



Sujeet Singh
Post #1421967
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12

Permissions Expand / Collapse