I have a couple of Databases which I need to deploy from Production Servers to Live Servers.
What I am doing is, before creating Backup, I rebuild the indexes and Update Statistics, then make backup and send it to Live.
Is that a good practice, can some one advice me in this regard
Thanks
Rebuilding indexes and update statistics, then shrinking make the database server busy, which may respond to your users as database server busy, or slow down their queries. Space is not an issue now a days so increase your database server drives.
Thanks
Related
I have two databases, staging and production, on the same Windows server. I am using a CMS and want the environments to be identical. I have taken backups of both databases using SSMS. What would be the best approach to update the staging database so that it is the same as the production database?
I have tried restoring the staging database with the production backup but it sets the staging database to single user. Usually when I have done this the databases have been on separate servers. Could someone advise on the best approach.
For example, do I take the staging database offline then complete the restore with the production backup?
What degree of latency is acceptable? Do you need the staging DB to be identical to production in near-realtime, within the hour, or is a once-nightly update sufficient? Depending on your needs, the best approach could be transactional replication, log shipping, backup/restore, etc.
I did the following steps and hope this helps others:
Took a backup of the production server
Went to IIS and stopped the staging site (otherwise you will not be able to take the staging database offline)
Took the staging database offline
Restored the staging backup with the live backup (I renamed the backup to the name of the staging database so not to cause confusion)
I have a problem that our production database is under heavy load.
So we have decide that we setup a second SQL server running copy of production database that doesn't need to be 100% uptodate with production database.
After searching I have found that asynchronous mirroring of production database might do the trick.
Mirror database would be only read-only for reports and stuff.
So I managed to set it up, but have found out that I can't read any data from mirror database because it is in recovery mode.
No I would like to know if my problem is solvable with mirroring or we should use alternative?
Thanks to Blim, we have decided for transaction replication. It works great on our development database (so it should in production too).
Step by step article: http://www.sql-server-performance.com/2010/transactional-replication-2008-r2/
What is the fastest way to backup/restore Azure SQL database?
The background: We have the database with size ~40 GB and restoring it from the .bacbac file (~4GB of compressed data) in the native way by Azure SQL Database Import/Export Service takes up to 6-8 hours. Creating .bacpac is also very long and takes ~2 hours.
UPD:
UPD.
Creating the database (by the way transactional consistent) copy using CREATE DATABASE [DBBackup] AS COPY OF [DB] takes only 15 minutes with 40 GB database and the restore is simple database rename.
UPD. Dec, 2014. Let me share with you our experience about the fastest way of DB migration schema we ended up with.
First of all, the approach with data-tier application (.bacpac) turned out to be not viable for us after DB became slightly bigger and it also will not work for you if you have at least one non-clustered index with total size > 2 GB until you disable non-clustered indexes before export - it's due to Azure SQL transaction log limit.
We stick to Azure Migration Wizard that for data transfer just runs BCP for each table (parameters of BCP are configurable) and it's ~20% faster than approach with .bacpac.
Here are some pitfalls we encountered with the Migration Wizard:
We run into encoding troubles for non-Unicode strings. Make sure
that BCP import and export runs with same collation. It's -C ... configuration switch, you can find parameters with which BCP calling
in .config file for MW application.
Take into account that MW (at least the version that is actual at the moment of this writing) runs BCP with parameters that will leave the constraints in non-trusted state, so do not forget to check all non-trusted constraints after BCP import.
If your database is 40GB it's long past time to consider having a redundant Database server that's ready to go as soon as the main becomes faulty.
You should have a second server running alongside the main DB server that has no actual routines except to sync with the main server on an hourly/daily basis (depending on how often your data changes, and how long it takes to run this process). You can also consider creating backups from this database server, instead of the main one.
If your main DB server goes down - for whatever reason - you can change the host address in your application to the backup database, and spend the 8 hours debugging your other server, instead of twiddling your thumbs waiting for the Azure Portal to do its thing while your clients complain.
Your database shouldn't be taking 6-8 hours to restore from backup though. If you are including upload/download time in that estimate, then you should consider storing your data in the Azure datacenter, as well as locally.
For more info see this article on Business Continuity on MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/hh852669.aspx
You'll want to specifically look at the Database Copies section, but the article is worth reading in full if your DB is so large.
Azure now supports Point in time restore / Geo restore and GeoDR features. You can use the combination of these to have quick backup / restore. PiTR and Geo restore comes with no additional cost while you have to pay for
Geo replica
There are multiple ways to do backup, restore and copy jobs on Azure.
Point in time restore.
Azure Service takes full backups, multiple differential backups and t-log backups every 5 minutes.
Geo Restore
same as Point in time restore. Only difference is that it picks up a redundant copy from a different blob storage stored in a different region.
Geo-Replication
Same as SQL Availability Groups. 4 Replicas Async with read capabilities. Select a region to become a hot standby.
More on Microsoft Site here. Blog here.
Azure SQL Database already has these local replicas that Liam is referring to. You can find more details on these three local replicas here http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/1695.inside-windows-azure-sql-database.aspx#High_Availability_with_SQL_Azure
Also, SQL Database recently introduced new service tiers that include new point-in-time-restore. Full details at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/hh852669.aspx
Key is to use right data management strategy as well that helps solve your objective. Wrong architecture and approach to put everything on cloud can prove disastrous... here's more to it to read - http://archdipesh.blogspot.com/2014/03/windows-azure-data-strategies-and.html
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.