Backup SQL Server to Amazon S3 with CloudBerry Backup

  • Comments posted to this topic are about the item Backup SQL Server to Amazon S3 with CloudBerry Backup

  • i haven't done the cost analysis, but for a medium to larger environment i think tape and local onsite backups are cheaper. LTO-4 tape is dirt cheap and the big investment is the robot and backup software

  • Nice informative article. Thanks for sharing.

    Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
    _______________________________________________
    I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
    SQL RNNR
    Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
    Learn Extended Events

  • alen teplitsky (5/13/2010)


    i haven't done the cost analysis, but for a medium to larger environment i think tape and local onsite backups are cheaper. LTO-4 tape is dirt cheap and the big investment is the robot and backup software

    It will be cheaper. Well you have to invest in the hardware. Then there is the time it takes to set it up and configure it properly. Those are all up front costs and you can amortize those over time. Then buy as many tapes as you want. They last a long time and you will want as many as you can handle and afford.

    There is one word, though, that is key to what you say. That word is onsite. If you are going to use tapes, and I am not saying that you should not use them, then at least put some kind of strictly enforced off site rotation plan into place.

    Talk to someone who has has a building fire, flood, storm damage, or earthquake

    ATBCharles Kincaid

  • andy-1011296 (5/13/2010)


    Comments posted to this topic are about the item <A HREF="/articles/Backup/70242/">Backup SQL Server to Amazon S3 with CloudBerry Backup</A>

    Nice article. Well done.

    I was wondering how this stacks up against services like Carbonite Pro[/url] or Barracuda Backup Service.

    Also I've seen practices where one uses SQL Server backup to make .bak files and then off-site backup those. How does that compare to what you are doing?

    Thanks again for being a brave pioneer and a good writer.

    ATBCharles Kincaid

  • Charles Kincaid (5/13/2010)


    alen teplitsky (5/13/2010)


    i haven't done the cost analysis, but for a medium to larger environment i think tape and local onsite backups are cheaper. LTO-4 tape is dirt cheap and the big investment is the robot and backup software

    It will be cheaper. Well you have to invest in the hardware. Then there is the time it takes to set it up and configure it properly. Those are all up front costs and you can amortize those over time. Then buy as many tapes as you want. They last a long time and you will want as many as you can handle and afford.

    There is one word, though, that is key to what you say. That word is onsite. If you are going to use tapes, and I am not saying that you should not use them, then at least put some kind of strictly enforced off site rotation plan into place.

    Talk to someone who has has a building fire, flood, storm damage, or earthquake

    did some quick math and with 100 LTO tapes that i have in my robot now at 2TB per tape i get $30,000 per month just for the storage cost. the transfer costs are extra.

    our investment has been less than $40,000 so far for the robot, software, tapes and a few other extras we had to buy along the way over the last year. we just bought 20 LTO-4 tapes for $778. that's 20-60 TB of data we can store depending on the compression

  • CloudBerry seems like a nice product, but adjusting it to SQL Server backups seems a bit convoluted. SQLBackupAndFTP allows you to do backups to Amazon S3 in a much simpler manner - just look at a screenshot from this post: http://pranas.net/2012/05/sql-backup-to-amazon-s3[/url]

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply