<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" target="_blank"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" alt="i" width="468" height="60"/></a>
Log in
::
Register
::
Not logged in
Home
Tags
Articles
Editorials
Stairways
Forums
Scripts
Videos
Blogs
QotD
Books
Ask SSC
SQL Jobs
Training
Authors
About us
Contact us
Newsletters
Write for us
<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" target="_top"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" alt="i" width="120" height="300"/></a>
Recent Posts
Recent Posts
Popular Topics
Popular Topics
Home
Search
Members
Calendar
Who's On
Home
»
SQL Server 7,2000
»
Administration
»
Reindexing Tables used in Log Shipping
18 posts, Page 2 of 2
««
1
2
Reindexing Tables used in Log Shipping
Rate Topic
Display Mode
Topic Options
Author
Message
Paresh Randeria
Paresh Randeria
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 2:42 AM
Valued Member
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, February 08, 2013 9:34 AM
Points: 57,
Visits: 281
Log Ship will be insync once you follow steps.
I suggest, pl verify on test server for surity. We always do.
Post #1254607
Divine Flame
Divine Flame
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 3:45 AM
Ten Centuries
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:00 PM
Points: 1,076,
Visits: 1,914
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.
- Divine Flame
Post #1254634
GilaMonster
GilaMonster
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 3:54 AM
SSC-Dedicated
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:46 AM
Points: 37,712,
Visits: 29,966
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
Divine Flame
Divine Flame
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 4:06 AM
Ten Centuries
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:00 PM
Points: 1,076,
Visits: 1,914
Actuly 2 new posts got added in the same thread today prior to my response, so replying to them
- Divine Flame
Post #1254648
jblovesthegym
jblovesthegym
Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2012 7:22 AM
Valued Member
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:32 AM
Points: 51,
Visits: 209
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
hipyskipy
hipyskipy
Posted Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:31 PM
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:28 PM
Points: 1,
Visits: 65
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
GilaMonster
GilaMonster
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 1:01 AM
SSC-Dedicated
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:46 AM
Points: 37,712,
Visits: 29,966
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
Divine Flame
Divine Flame
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:25 AM
Ten Centuries
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:00 PM
Points: 1,076,
Visits: 1,914
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.
- Divine Flame
Post #1421967
« Prev Topic
|
Next Topic »
18 posts, Page 2 of 2
««
1
2
Permissions
You
cannot
post new topics.
You
cannot
post topic replies.
You
cannot
post new polls.
You
cannot
post replies to polls.
You
cannot
edit your own topics.
You
cannot
delete your own topics.
You
cannot
edit other topics.
You
cannot
delete other topics.
You
cannot
edit your own posts.
You
cannot
edit other posts.
You
cannot
delete your own posts.
You
cannot
delete other posts.
You
cannot
post events.
You
cannot
edit your own events.
You
cannot
edit other events.
You
cannot
delete your own events.
You
cannot
delete other events.
You
cannot
send private messages.
You
cannot
send emails.
You
may
read topics.
You
cannot
rate topics.
You
cannot
vote within polls.
You
cannot
upload attachments.
You
may
download attachments.
You
cannot
post HTML code.
You
cannot
edit HTML code.
You
cannot
post IFCode.
You
cannot
post JavaScript.
You
cannot
post EmotIcons.
You
cannot
post or upload images.
Copyright © 2002-2013 Simple Talk Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy.
Terms of Use.
Report Abuse.
