Michael Valentine Jones (1/15/2013)
Markus (1/15/2013)
Interesting thoughts, thanks.Has anyone done any comparision to the SQL2008R2 backups with compression as far as time taken to run and size of backup and compared it to, say LiteSpeed? I would be curious to know how they compare for a VLDB. I dont have anything yet over 1TB or I'd try and compare.
I found SQL Backups with native compression to be faster and slightly smaller than LiteSpeed backups.
I also found restoring LiteSpeed transaction logs backups to be much slower. I had a situation where I needed to restore 14 days of tran log backups (made every 15 minutes, 24x7) and it took a very long time, maybe a day. I think there is a lot of overhead to activating the extended stored procedure that LiteSpeed uses for the tran log restore, and that was most of the runtime.
That was about 2 years ago, so I can't say if LiteSpeed has improved that by now in a later version.
Can't speak for any other third party products.
Very interesting. We have an outside vendor that hosts an application for us but gives us the logs to apply to a copy of the db here so we can run reports on that data. They were using SQL Lite when it was SQL2005 and it did seem to run somewhat long... one log per 15 minutes is about 90ish logs a day. They varied in size greatly though. When they/we upgraded to SQL2008R2 last month I asked if they could switch to Native SQL Backups using the WITH COMPRESSION instead of SQL Lite they agreed. From what little I have seen I believe it runs faster and the size of the files aren't really that much different I don't think. To me it takes one part of the complexity out. I just didn't know that if you get well over 1TB if the SQL Lite started to have a good return vs 2008R2 is all.