| Author |
Topic |
|
alexcubillos
Starting Member
5 Posts |
 Posted - 2006-12-28 : 12:27:33
|
| Hi everyone,As part of a BCP (Business Continuity Plan) I have to set a solution for high availability for SQL Server Databases. This is the scenario:Main office at NY City. Main database with partitioned tables storing current and historic data since 10 years ago.Hot Site (remote ) at St Louis Misouri. Databases have to be available in case of disaster at NY City Office. We want to keep at hot site at least 1 year of history.Current Situation: the full database backup size is around 100GB. For log Shipping I will have to restore it at hot site serve. The constraints are that we do not want to keep all the history only one year.. and the transfering of the backup files to hot site may take to much time.. that means expense($$$$) for us. For replication, I have read is not the best option for high availability... but it will help us to filter the data we want to keep at hot site. There is a recovery issue to keep in mind in case of recovering data at Main Site after a disaster (if the building still existing ..).I want to understand what is the best option (minor risk of data loss, administration, cost $$$ based on usage of bandwith,...) regardless of Clustering and Database Mirroring .. we have implemented database mirroring locally in another server...Thanks for your advise.. |
|
|
monty
Posting Yak Master
130 Posts |
Posted - 2006-12-28 : 22:56:51
|
As u have said backup size is about 100GB, certainly i will not choose logshipping as the recovery time wiill be of big concern, again replication looks to be gud option, still u might face problems to maintain it on a long run because u said u need data for atlest 1 yr..if money is not a constraint then the best option is clustering .. mirroring is again at database level not at server level.. u might be aware of that, my chioce wld be clustering,its the best option.no gain if there is no pain  its me monty |
 |
|
|
alexcubillos
Starting Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 2006-12-29 : 11:01:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by monty
As u have said backup size is about 100GB, certainly i will not choose logshipping as the recovery time wiill be of big concern, again replication looks to be gud option, still u might face problems to maintain it on a long run because u said u need data for atlest 1 yr..if money is not a constraint then the best option is clustering .. mirroring is again at database level not at server level.. u might be aware of that, my chioce wld be clustering,its the best option.no gain if there is no pain its me monty
Thank you for answering...Yes, money is a constraint,... I'm doing some extensive analysis to implement log shipping... there are some technical constraints I will have to deal with. |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2006-12-29 : 13:32:35
|
| Recovery time is not a big concern with log shipping. The only issue with it and database mirroring is the time it would take to do the restore of the full backup. After that, recovery time is dependent on the transaction log backups. Replication sounds like a good option for you, but I can't recommend it as a disaster recovery solution. The initial snapshot might take quite a bit of time, so that's something you need to consider.Tara Kizer |
|
|
|
alexcubillos
Starting Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 2006-12-29 : 16:27:31
|
| I have chosen log shipping.. now I'm working with some pre-requisites: storage, bandwith... The only concern I have is the initialization of the database at the remote location because the current size of a full database backup is around 100GB (compresse migh be 70GB), so I will have to figure out how, when... We have historic filegroups distributed by year-month (partitioned tables) since 2000 as follows: 2000_01 2000_02 2000_3.... 2006_12.. those are in average 300MB each, the primary is around 100GB and the log file around 10GB.I'm testing restoring a partial backup that only includes the 2006 until now filegroups in order to minimize the size of the backup file.. if we can do it.. may be I will enabled to transfer the file via third party tool if not, we will have to send a tape to StLouis Misouri...Any ideas??? |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2006-12-29 : 16:33:38
|
| You should consider SQL Litespeed. It can do log shipping as well. Plus it will reduce your backup file size by around 75% and backup time by around 75%.Tara Kizer |
|
|
|
alexcubillos
Starting Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 2006-12-29 : 17:33:37
|
| Thank you.. I'm reading about litespeed.. what do you know about licensing and costs??Any tool you use for online backup??? |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2006-12-29 : 17:37:59
|
| Litespeed is a tool for online backup just like BACKUP command gives you an online backup.Please visit their site for licensing. We own quite a few licenses.Tara Kizer |
|
|
|
alexcubillos
Starting Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 2006-12-29 : 17:49:24
|
| Great!!!Thank you |
|
|
|
|
Log Shipping or Replication at HOT SITE