We have some machines storing experimental data on Win7 Machines. The experimental software is only compatible with Windows 7 and as such our IT department does not want to connect to this isolated machine anymore. Is there a way to completely "mirror" this Win7 PCs SQL server or completely copy it, and keep it relatively up to date, on a win 10 PC? and by server I mean multiple databases which may grow
in number. Thank you.
Is there a way to completely "mirror" this Win7 PCs SQL server or
completely copy it, and keep it relatively up to date
What you seem to want is LOG SHIPPING. The basic steps are:
Back Up your DB
Restore it on N number of other servers that you want to keep relatively up to date
Configure log shipping, either through he wizard or manually. This will ship the transaction log backups to your other servers
Restore the transaction logs
Of course, this is all automated once you set it up. The relatively up to date is based on how often you do the transaction log backups, how long it takes to travel, and how long it takes to restore. If you only want it updated daily, or weekly, or some other time--you could just copy your DB backups to each of the other servers via PowerShell or what ever method you want, and restore the FullBackup instead of all of the transaction logs. This is a lot simpler, and the only downtime would be during the restore of your secondary servers (how ever long the restore takes).
There are other options which include Database Mirroring and Availability Groups. Each have their own pros and cons, and come at a price.
Related
I have an Azure VM - Windows (Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter). It has Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 running on it (version v10.50.6549).
The Azure VM has backups running according to a policy - and I can see in the backups blade for the VM that they are running nightly.
If I have an issue with the SQL Server, and need to roll back to a prior version of the database, will the File Recovery option from the VM backup be adequate?
Or should I also be running SQL Server backups via a maintenance plan on the server on the VM?
If I have an issue with the SQL Server, and need to roll back to a
prior version of the database, will the File Recovery option from the
VM backup be adequate?
Maybe. VM Backups don't always give you consistent SQL backups. They usually work, but not always. If you have everything setup just right and get consistent VM backups, it might be ok-- but you are running a fairly old OS on that VM, so I'd be nervous. Very nervous. If the data is really important to you, then you should backup the data, not just the VM. Sometimes you want to restore just the data to another VM to investigate, not the entire server. I also hope you have more than just "last night's VM backup" at any given time. Sometimes bad things happen on Friday and you don't notice until Monday.
Or should I also be running SQL backups via a maintenance plan on the
server on the VM?
Yes, you should be running SQL backups if you your data is important. If your data is really important (you don't want to lose half a day of it), you should be doing full backups periodically (e.g. nightly) transaction log backups many times per hour, and keeping a few weeks worth of backups in rotation. If your data is super-important (you don't want to lose more than a few seconds), you should be mirroring it over to another database server in near-time (asynchronously). If it is critical (you don't want to lose any data), then you want to mirror to another server in real-time (synchronously).
Of course, if you are already running in Azure and don't have a DBA, managing a database is a lot easier, safer, more available, and generally cheaper if you use Azure SQL rather than trying to manage your own instance SQL Server in a VM-- oh yeah, and backups are handled for you, with millisecond point-in-time recovery for up to 45 days-- and they handle the mirroring for you to. If you want to mirror to another region across the country, you do have to pay extra for that, though.
I have installed SQL server database (mainserver) in one instance and SQL server database for RerportServer in others. what is the best way to replicate data from mainServer to report Server? Data in mainServer changes frequently and actual information in the ReportSever is very important.
And there is many ways to do this:
mirroring
shipping log
transactional replication
merge replication
snapshot replication
are there some best-practices about this?
Thanks
You need Transactional Replication for your case. Here is why you would not need the other 4 cases:
Mirroring
This is generally used to increase the availability of a database server and provides for automatic failover in case of a disaster.
Typically even though you have more than a single copy of the database (recommended to be on different server instances), only one of them is active at a time, called the principle server.
Every operation on this server instance is mirrored on the others continuously (as soon as possible), so this doesn't fit your use case.
Log Shipping
In this case, apart from the production database servers, you have extra failover servers such that the backup of the production server's database, differential & transactional logs are automatically shipped (copied) to the failovers, and restored.
The replication here is relatively scheduled to be at a longer interval of time than the other mechanisms, typically ranging from an hour to a couple of hours.
This also provides for having the failver servers readies manually in case of a disaster at the production sites.
This also doesn't fit your use case.
Merge Replication
The key difference between this and the others is that the replicated database instances can communicate to the different client applications independent of the changes being made to each other.
For example a database server in North America being updated by clients across Americas & Europe and another one in Australia being updated by clients across the Asia-Pacific region, and then the changes being merged to one another.
Again, it doesn't fit your use case.
Snapshot Replication
The whole snapshot of the database is published to be replicated to the secondary database (different from just the log files being shipped for replication.)
Initially however, for each type of replication a snapshot is generated to initialized the subscribing database, i.e only once.
Why you should use Transactional Replication?
You can choose the objects (Tables, Views, etc) to be replicated continuously, so if there are only a subset of the tables which are used to reporting, it would save a lot of bandwidth. This is not possible in Mirroring and Log Shipping.
You can redirect traffic from your application to the reporting server for all the reads and reports (which you can also do in others too, btw).
You can have independent batch jobs generating some of the more used reports running on the reporting server, reducing the load on the main server if it has quite frequent Inserts, Updates or Deletes.
Going through your list from top to bottom.
Mirroring: If you mirror your data from your mainServer to your reportServer you will not be able to access your reportServer. Mirroring puts the mirrored database into a continuous restoring state. Mirroring is a High Availability solution. In your case the reportServer will only be available to query if you do a fail over. The mirrored server is never operational till fail over. This is not what you want as you cannot use the reportServer till it is operational.
Log Shipping: Log shipping will allow you to apply transactional log backups on a scheduled event to the reportServer. If you backup the transaction log every 15 minutes and apply the data to the reportServer you will have a delay of 15+ minutes between your mainServer and Log server. Mirroring is actually real time log shipping. Depending on how you setup log shipping your client will have to disconnect while the database is busy restoring the log files. Thus during a long restore it might be impossible to use reporting. Log Shipping is also a High Availability feature and not really useful for reporting. See this link for a description of trying to access a database while it is trying to restore http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/sqldisasterrecovery/thread/c6931747-9dcb-41f6-bdf4-ae0f4569fda7
Replication : I am lumping all the replication together here. Replication especially transactional replication can help you scale out your reporting needs. It would generally be mush easier to implement and also you would be able to report on the data all of the time where in mirroring you cant report on the data in transaction log shipping you will have gaps. So in your case replication makes much more sense. Snapshot replication would be useful if your reports could be say a day old. You can make a snapshot every morning of the data you need from mainServer and publish this to the subscribers reportServer. However if the database is extremely large then Snapshot is going to be problematic to deal with on a daily basis. Merge replication is only usefull when you want to update the replicated data. In your case you want to have a read only copy of the data to report on so Merge replication is not going to help. Transactional Replication would allow you to send replications across the wire. In your case where you need frequently updated information in your reportServer this would be extremely useful. I would probably suggest this route for you.
Just remember that by implementing the replication/mirroring/log shipping you are creating more maintenance work. Replication CAN fail. So can mirroring and so can transaction log shipping. You will need to monitor these solutions to make sure they are running smoothly. So the question is do you really need to scale out your reports to another server or maybe spend time identifying why you cant report on the production server?
Hope that helps!
I have the following scenario:
Our system is running a SQL Server Express 2005 database locally (on each users desktop, if you will). The system is storing a lot of production data from a machine. There are high demands on the safety of the data, and doing a backup each night, or even each hour is not enough. We need a backup strategy that will ensure almost instantaneous/continuous backup of the database.
Is there anyone out there that has successfully implemented a system similar to this, and/or has got some ideas of how to accomplish it? The only thing I can think of right now is to have mirrored drives (raid) to hold the data, but that would be complicated and expensive.
I would appreciate any and all thoughts on this, since it is a real issue for me and my company. Thanks in advance!
Update:
I was not clear enough in my description of the scenario. The system is storing data in a vehicle that has no connection to anything. A centralized database is therefor not possible. Neither can we use a standard/enterprise version of SQL Server, since it would be to expensive (each vehicle would need a license). Thanks for your input!
Switch your database into "Full" recovery mode. Do full backup every night and do delta backup after major user action. The delta backups can be done to the flash memory or different hard-drive, and all data can be synchronized with server when online.
Another simple way is to trace all user changes and important data in a text file that stored on a separate drive. If SQL database crashes the user or other operator can repeat steps to restore data.
One way I've seen this done is by using DoubleTake.
I will assume that a central database on a server is not feasible because your systems are running standalone and are not connected to anything. So this is what I would do
Set up RAID on the computer. This insures you against simple disk failure.
Any SQLSever database can be recovered to the point of the last commited transaction if you have a full database backup and a set of transaction logs available. Basically you simply restore the last full backup then apply the transaction logs going forward. See these links.
http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/storage/features/article.php/11318_3776361_3
https://web.archive.org/web/1/http://blogs.techrepublic%2ecom%2ecom/datacenter/?p=132
So what you need to do is set up a periodic full backup of both the database and transaction logs, and more regular transaction log backups (and ensure that your transaction log can never run out of space).
In the event of failure you restore the last full backup, then apply the transaction logs going forward.
Myself, if these are critical systems, I would be inclined to add an additional drive to the system and make sure that the backups are copied over to that. This is because as good as raid is it does sometimes have issues - raid controllers fail, disks get wiped accidentally in parallel, disk failures go unnoticed so your just running on one disk etc. If you ensure backups are copied to a separate disk then you can always recover to the last transaction log backup. You should also ensure tape backups of course, but they are generally a last resort in the event of trouble.
If for some reason you cannot set up raid then you should still install a second disk, but place the database file on one drive and the transaction log on the other and copy backups to both disks. In the event of failure of the C drive, or some other software issue crashing the database you can still recover to the last commited transaction. Failure on the D drive limits you to the last transaction log backup (Oracle used to allow you to mirror the transaction log from the database, which again would completely cover you, but I don't think this facility exists in SQL Server)
If you are looking for a scheduler for SQL Server Express (which doesn't come with one) then I've been using SQLScheduler quite happily without problems, and it's free.
The most obvious answer would be to ditch SQL Server Express running locally and use a single source for your data (such as a standard SQL server install on a central storage location). Unless your system requires individual back ups of every single person's own individual instance of SQL Server Express.
If your requirements are so stringent as to call for instantaneous backups on every operation, you should definitely think about a different method of storage than local instances of SQL Server Express.
Wouldn't it be easier to just use one centralized SQL Server and back that up every hour or so? If you truly need instantaneous backup, your company (which seems not to want to spend money by installing Express on each machine) will need to spring for two servers and two SQL Server Enterprise licenses to implement Mirroring.
Raid isn't that expensive, but it is also not the best option. If you really want high availability data you should upgrade to sql server standard on a remote server where each user connects to and use transaction based replication to an sql server (express) instance on another machine. Raid doesn't always protect you from dataloss. If the data is that important for you then the costs should not be that much of an issue.
Update in response to the question update.
If you can't use remote servers then there a couple of options:
You write a trigger which initiates a backup script on each insert or update and stores it on a seperate harddrive.
You use raid. But beware that if the raid controller fails that you still got a problem.
RAID is not expensive. Use RAID to protect against hard drive failure. You also need monitoring though. No point in having this if you let both drives fail.
Also, implement hourly incremental backups, then daily incremental backups and finally weekly full backups.
You need all of these strategies working together because they protect against different things. RAID does not protect against human or coding errors destroying data. Hourly and weekly backups don't protect against hard drive failure.
I manage a web application for a client with the following specs:
ASP.net 3.5 running on a Virtual Windows 2003 Web Server
SQL Server Standard hosting the database
Database current size of 6Gb, with 1Gb/month growth rate
One single table is responsible for 98% of the size, holds the most critical data for the client
Log is not kept for this big table, only selects are done in this table
50 Gb FTP space avaiable for backup
Considering this scenario, what would be the best strategy for a SQL Backup and what tool would be best suited for this task (commercial applications included, client can pay for the license fee)?
Here is the strategy we use for CodePlex.com:
All SQL servers run with a peer server using SQL mirroring
Weekly full backup (stored on separate drive from databases)
Daily differential backup (stored on separate drive from databases)
Transaction log backup every 5 minutes (stored on separate drive from databases)
Daily tape backup
Tape backups taken offsite weekly
Also very important test your backups! Studies have shown that over 30% of untested backup procedures are flawed. Here is our backup testing strategy:
Every 30 minutes verify the full backup file exists (using scheduled task)
Every 30 minutes verify the differential backup file exists (using scheduled task)
Every 30 minutes verify the transaction log backup file exists (using scheduled task)
Every 30 minutes verify the database mirroring is configured (using scheduled task)
Every day, do a test restore of the full+differential backup and report the table row counts (using scheduled task)
Once a month do a test restore of the most recent tape backup and verify the data
It depends how critical is the data. Here is however how I i'd do it.
1. Run a full backup every day.
2. Run a differential backup every 4 hours.
3. Run a transactional log backup every 15 minutes
4. Keep a copy at the site and move a copy off the site as well as soon as the backup is done.
The database is not too big, and this is easily doable.
Use a third party tool like Redgate SQL Backup and it will automatically compress and encrypt the database backup for you. I have used it extensively and am a big fan.
Additionally if you another site available, and the data is very critical, you might want to think about setting up log shipping as well.
This is a VPC? Can you install apps?
http://www.jungledisk.com/
That's what we use - make a sql job that pushes out a backup every day, then use that service to push a copy back to Amazons S3 service. If not maybe you could have a local app that pulls the backup to a machine then pushes it /w S3 webservice, or still using Jungledisk.
This is important! If your app goes down it hurts! Also make sure you backup your deployed app and resources stored there... i.e. uploaded content to your apps storage directory.
I was supposed to type in my answer to your question but I realized there are lots of far greater resources somewhere like this article in SQLServerCentral.com. You can also find lots of "Best Practices on Backup" like this one.
You might also want to take into consideration how much data you can afford to lose and how long it will take you to restore the database. Your client may decide that they never want to lose more than 15 minutes of data ever, or they may decide that losing up to a days worth of data is okay with them.
Warm Standby SQL Server/Web Server
This question might fall into the IT category but as the lead developer I must come up with a solution to integration as well as pure software issues.
We just moved our web server off site and now I would like to keep a warm standby of both the website and database (SQL 2005) on site.
What are the best practices for going about doing this with the following environment?
Offsite: our website and database (SQL 2005) are on one Windows 2003 server. There is a firewall in front of the server which makes
replication or database mirroring not an option. A vpn is also not an option.
My thoughts as a developer were to write a service which runs at the remote site to zip up and ftp the database backup to an ftp server
on site. Then another process would unzip the backup and restore it to the warm standby database here.
I assume I could do this with the web site as well.
I would be open to all ideas including third party solutions.
If you want a remote standby you probably want to look into a log shipping solution.
This article may help you out. In the past I had to develop one of these solutions for the exact same problem, writing it from scratch is not too hard. The advantage you get with log shipping is that you have the ability to restore to any point in time and you avoid shipping these big heavy full backups around and instead ship light transaction log backups, and occasionally a big backup.
You have to keep in mind that transaction log backups are useless without having both the entire sequence of transaction log backups and a full backup.
You have exactly the right idea. You could maybe write a script that would insert the names of the files that you moved into a table that your warm server could read. Your job could then just poll this table at intervals and not worry about timing.
Forget about that - just found this. Sounds like what you are setting out to do.
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Administering/customlogshipping/1201/
I've heard good things about Syncback:
http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/sbpro-features.html
Thanks for the link to the article sambo99. Transaction log shipping was my original idea, but I dismissed it because the servers are not in the same domain not even in the same time zone. My only method of moving the files from point A to point B is via FTP. I am going to experiment with just shipping the transaction logs. And see if there is a way to fire off a restore job at given intervals.
www.FolderShare.com is a good tool from Microsoft. You could log ship to a local directory and then synchronize the directory to any other machine. You could also syncrhronize the website folders as well.
"Set it and forget it" type solution. Setup your SQL jobs to clear older files and you'll never have to edit anything after the initial install.
FolderShare (free, in beta) is currently limited to 10,000 files per library.
For all interested the following question also ties into my overall plan to implement log shipping:
SQL Server sp_cmdshell