I want to make a copy of a database to run intensive analysis on while the original is in use. From what I read, the database will not be locked during backup. I cannot find any information whether or not the database will be locked during copy using the copy-wizard.
What is the most effective (fastest and using the least disk space) way to make a duplicate of a production-database on the same server?
There are at least two ways:
transaction log shipping: secondary database is read only for your OLAP queries
replication: secondary database can be modified
You may test a database snapshot, too but this method isolates the data state only not the workload.
Related
I have a scenario in which I need to maintain a replica of existing database.
Is there a solution to achieve the below mentioned approach.
1. Take a full back once and restore to a destination database.
2. Scheduled( ex: Every day) differential backup(Only the data which has changed since last backup) of the source database and restore into the destination database
This is to avoid taking full backup and restore each time.
You can use Differential Backups, but you would need to ship a new Full backup periodically or the Differentials will continue to grow.
A better solution might be Log Shipping, where you can ship just the changes on whatever schedule you want.
You can consider configuring an availability group and use a secondary SQL server instance with asynchronous data sync. This should be considered only if the primary(original live SQL server) and secondary servers are in the same location\data centre. So you don't need to take backup-restore or do any extra work other than properly configuring it at the first time.
If that is not the case (copy should be available in another location\data center), it would be better to go with configuring log shipping.
First option is a lot better because it would contain the exact copy of the primary database (with a sync delay depending on various factors...probably seconds) and you can directly fail over to the secondary in case of any issues with the primary server.
Can anyone explain the differences from a replication db vs a mirroring db server?
I have huge reports to run. I want to use a secondary database server to run my report so I can off load resources from the primary server.
Should I setup a replication server or a mirrored server and why?
For your requirements the replication is the way to go. (asumming you're talking about transactional replication) As stated before mirroring will "mirror" the whole database but you won't be able to query unless you create snapshots from it.
The good point of the replication is that you can select which objects will you use and you can also filter it, and since the DB will be open you can delete info if it's not required( just be careful as this can lead to problems maintaining the replication itself), or create specific indexes for the report which are not needed in "production". I used to maintain this kind of solutions for a long time with no issues.
(Assuming you are referring to Transactional Replication)
The biggest differences are: 1) Replication operates on an object-by-object basis whereas mirroring operates on an entire database. 2) You can't query a mirrored database directly - you have to create snapshots based on the mirrored copy.
In my opinion, mirroring is easier to maintain, but the constant creation of snapshots may prove to be a hassle.
As mentioned here
Database mirroring and database replication are two high data
availability techniques for database servers. In replication, data and
database objects are copied and distributed from one database to
another. It reduces the load from the original database server, and
all the servers on which the database was copied are as active as the
master server. On the other hand, database mirroring creates copies of
a database in two different server instances (principal and mirror).
These mirror copies work as standby copies and are not always active
like in the case of data replication.
This question can also be helpful or have a look at MS Documentation
I need a clarification about tempdb in SQL Server and need some clarifications on following things
What is the purpose of its?
Can we create a own tempdb and how to make refer the own tempdb to own database?
FROM MSDN
The tempdb system database is a global resource that is available to all users connected to the instance of SQL Server and is used to hold the following:
Temporary user objects that are explicitly created, such as: global
or local temporary tables, temporary stored procedures, table
variables, or cursors.
Internal objects that are created by the SQL Server Database Engine,
for example, work tables to store intermediate results for spools or
sorting.
Row versions that are generated by data modification transactions in
a database that uses read-committed using row versioning isolation
or snapshot isolation transactions.
Row versions that are generated by data modification transactions
for features, such as: online index operations, Multiple Active
Result Sets (MARS), and AFTER triggers.
Operations within tempdb are minimally logged.
This enables transactions to be rolled back. tempdb is re-created every time SQL Server is started so that the system always starts with a clean copy of the database.
Temporary tables and stored procedures are dropped automatically on disconnect, and no connections are active when the system is shut down. Therefore, there is never anything in tempdb to be saved from one session of SQL Server to another. Backup and restore operations are not allowed on tempdb.
TempdB is a system database and we cant create system databases .Tempdb is a global resource for all databases ,which means temp tables,table variables,version store for user databases...all will use tempdb..This is a pretty basic explanation for tempdb.Refer to below links on how it is used for other purposes like database emails,..
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190768.aspx
1: It is what it says. A temporary storage. FOr example when you ask for DISTINCT results, SQL Server must remember what rows it already sent you. Same with a temporary table.
2: Makes no sense. Tempdb is not a database but a server thing - ONE TempDB regardless how many database. You can change where it is and how it is (file number, size) but it is never related to one database (except obviously if you only have one database on a SQL Server instance). Having your own Tempdb is NOT how SQL Server works. And while we are at it - no need to ever make a backup (of tempdb). When SQL Server starts, Tempdb is reinitialized as empty.
And, btw., this would be obvious if you would bother with such things as being borderline competent. Which includes for me reading the documentation of every major technology I work with once. You should consider this to be something to adopt because it is the only way to know what you are doing.
I'm using redgate's sql azure backup tool: http://www.red-gate.com/products/dba/sql-azure-backup/
It looks like if you check "Make Backup Transactionally Consistent" you get charged a full day's use for sql server. I'm wondering if I need to check this.
I do daily backups to blob storage and I backup the database to my local machine to work with every 3 days or so.
If I don't check the Transactionally Consistent box, am I going to run into any problems?
Well as the person who wrote SQL Azure Backup at Red Gate I can say that the only way to create a guaranteed transactionally consistent backup in Azure currently is indeed to use CREATE DATABASE ... AS COPY OF. This copy only exists for the duration of us taking the backup and is then dropped immediately afterwards.
If you don't check the box you'll only hit problems if there is a risk of transactions being in an inconsistent state when reading the data from each table in turn. CREATE COPY OF can take a very long time and also may cost money for the copy too.
If you're backing up to a BLOB you're using the Microsoft Import Export service rather than SQL Compare and SQL Data Compare technology but that also reads data from the tables to could be inconsistent too.
Hope this helps
Richard
AFAIK transactionally consistent means that you get a snapshot of the database at a point in time (which presumably means SQL Azure locks the db while (quickly we hope) it makes a copy of the entire database = your one day charge for a db that exists for only a few minutes).
This is better illustrated by non-transactionally consistent backup where begin by copying table X. While you are doing that someone amends (as it's a live database) table Y, which later gets copied to the backup. The foreign keys between X and Y might now not match 'cos X is from an earlier time period than Y.
I have used Sql Azure Backup and I did go for transactional consistency because the backups are for an emergency and the last thing I want in that scenario is inconsistencies in the data.
edit: now I think about it, Redgate should really state that if you backup every day you are effectively paying twice the rate for your database. I've been waiting for the sync framework which I think is there now...
To answer the question in the title: a SQL Azure database copy (the 'backup') is a SQL Azure database that is copied (fully online) from the source database and contains no uncommitted transactions (ie. is transactionally consistent). This is achieved the same way database snapshots or backup restores achieve consistency on the standalone SQL Server product: all pending transactions at the moment of 'separation' are rolled back.
As to why or how RedGate's product utilizes this, I don't know. I would venture a guess that in order to achieve a 'transitionally consistent backup' they are doing a CREATE DATABASE ... AS COPY OF ... (which creates the desired transactionally consistence) and then they use the technology from SQL Compare and Data Compare to copy out the schema and data.
I have one database which contains the most recent data, and I want to replicate the database content into some other servers. Due to non-technical reasons, I can not directly use replicate function or sync function to sync to other SQL Server instances.
Now, I have two solutions, and I want to learn the pros and cons for each solution. Thanks!
Solution 1: detach the source database which contains the most recent data, then copy to the destination servers which need the most recent data, and attach database at the destination servers;
Solution 2: make a full backup of source server for the whole database, then copy data to destination servers and take a full recovery at the destination server side.
thanks in advance,
George
The Detach / Attach option is often quicker than performing a backup as it doesn't have to create a new file. Therefore, the time from Server A to Server B is almost purely the file copy time.
The Backup / Restore option allows you to perform a full backup, restore that, then perform a differential backup which means your down time can be reduced between the two.
If it's data replication you're after, does that mean you want the database functional in both locations? In that case, you probably want the backup / restore option as that will leave the current database fully functional.
EDIT: Just to clarify a few points. By downtime I mean that if you're migrating a database from one server to another, you generally will be stopping people using it whilst it's in transit. Therefore, from the "stop" point on Server A up to the "start" point on Server B this could be considered downtime. Otherwise, any actions performed on the database on server A during transit will not be replicated onto server B.
In regards to the "create a new file". If you detach a database you can copy the MDF file immediately. It's already there ready to be copied. However, if you perform a backup, you have to wait for the .BAK file to be created and then move it to it's new location for a restore. Again this all comes down to is this a snapshot copy or a migration.
Backing up and restoring makes much more sense, even if you might eek out a few extra minutes from a detach attach option instead. You have to take the original database offline (disconnect everyone) prior to a detach, and then the db is unavailable until you reattach. You also have to keep track of all of the files, whereas with a backup all of the files are grouped. And with the most recent versions of SQL Server the backups are compressed.
And just to correct something: DB backups and differential backups do not truncate the log, and do not break the log chain.
In addition, the COPY_ONLY functionality only matters for the differential base, not for the LOG. All log backups can be applied in sequence from any backup assuming there was no break in the log chain. There is a slight difference with the archive point, but I can't see where that matters.
Solution 2 would be my choice... Primarily becuase it won't create any downtime on the source database. The only disadvatage i can see is that depending on the database recovery model, the transaction log will be truncated meaning if you wanted to restore any data from the transaction log you'd be stuffed, you'd have to use your backup file.
EDIT: Found a nice link; http://sql-server-performance.com/Community/forums/p/5838/35573.aspx