What's the difference of restore and recovery? What I understand is:
restore: refresh a database using the
backup files of this database
recovery: after the database fail,
such as the reboot the server, the
database reapply the committed
transaction in the transaction log
Does my understanding right?
Thanks,
Restore; bring a file back from backup media, e.g. tape, other disk
Recovery; re-running or unwinding in progress transactions that were partly completed in the DB.
Generally one will recover and then restore. Some RDBMes will hide the 2 different steps to some extent but still undertake the 2 different actions.
They are the same function, bringing back records that were accidentally dropped, repair corrupted database files, restore entire tables as well as queries, forms, macros, and stored procedures.
Related
Given a SQL Server 2008 .bak file, is there a way to restore the data file only from the .bak file, without the transaction log?
The reason I'm asking is that the transaction log file size of this database is huge - exceeding the disc space I have readily available.
I have no interest in the transaction log, and no interest in any uncompleted transactions. Normally I would simply shrink the log to zero, once I've restored the database. But that doesn't help when I have insufficient disc space to create the log in the first place.
What I need is a way to tell SQL Server to restore only the data from the .bak file, not the transaction log. Is there any way to do that?
Note that I have no control over the generation of the .bak file - it's from an external source. Shrinking the transaction log before generating the .bak file is not an option.
The transaction log is an integral part of the backup. You can't tell SQL Server to ignore the transaction log, because there is no way to let's say restore and shrink the transaction log file at the same time. However, you can take a look at DBA post to hack the process, although it is not recommended at all
Alternatively you could try some third party tools for restoring, particularly virtual restoring process that can save a lot of space and time. Check out ApexSQL Restore, RedGate Virtual Restore, Idera Virtual Database.
Disclaimer: I work for ApexSQL as support engineer
No, the transaction log is required.
Option 1:
An option may be to restore it to a machine that you DO have enough space on. Then on the restored copy change the logging to either bulk logged or simple, shrink the logs, do another backup operation on this new copy and then use that to restore to the target machine with the now much smaller transaction log.
Option 2:
Alternatively, perhaps the contact at the external source could shrink the transaction log before sending it to you (this may not work if the log is large due to a lot of big transactions).
Docs on the command to shrink the log file are available here.
This is really a question for the ServerFault or DBA sites, but the short answer is no, you can only restore the full .bak file (leaving aside 'exotic' scenarios such as filegroup or piecemeal restores). You don't say what "huge" means, but disk space is cheap; if adding more really isn't an option then you need to find an alternative way of getting the data from your external source.
This may not work since you have no control over the generation of the .bak file, but if you could convince your source to detach the database and then send you a copy of the .mdf file directly, you could then attach the .mdf and your server would automatically create a new empty transaction log file.
See sp_detach_db and sp_attach_db (or CREATE DATABASE database_name FOR ATTACH depending on your sql server version).
I know this is an old thread now, but i stumbled across it while I was having transactional log corruption issues, here is how I got around it without any data loss (I did have down time though!)
Here is what I did:--
Stop the sql server instance service
make a copy of the affected database .mdf file and .ldf file (if you have an .ndf file, copy that as well!) - Just to be sure, you can always put these back if it doesn't work for you.
restart the service.
Log into sql management studio and change the database mode to simple, then take a full backup.
Change the database type back again and once again take a full backup, then take a transactional log backup.
Detach the database.
Right click on databases and click on restore, select the database name from the drop down list, select the later full database backup created (not the one taken from the simple mode) and also select the transactional log backup.
Click restore and it should put it all back without any corruption in the log files.
This worked for me with no errors and my backups all worked correctly afterwards and there were no more transactional log errors.
We have a SQL Server 2005 database whose reovery model is Simple. One of the users has deleted few important records from few tables accidentally. It is not possible to recover the data from SQL Server transaction logs when the recovery modle is Simple. I have heard that there are recovery tools like EnCase, Evidence Eliminator etc., using which one can recover the deleted files from the hard disk. Can it be possible to restore the state of disk files at any point in time? Please provide your inputs.
Thanks in Advance
As shown in this link http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189275.aspx with simple recovery model there are no log backups, you should restore from a previous backup
In SQL Server 2008, I have my parent table in one database, and the child table in another database, with FK relationship maintained by triggers. I cannot change it, cannot move both tables into one DB and have a regular FK constraint. When I restored both databases from full backups, I had orphans in my child table, because the full backups were not taken at the same time. I also have transaction logs.
In case of disaster recovery, can I restore both databases to precisely the same moment, so that the two databases are consistent?
Restoring at the same moment in time is possible as long as the databases are in full recovery mode and regular log backups are taken. See How to: Restore to a Point in Time (Transact-SQL).
However point in time recovery will not ensure cross-db transactional consistency on their own, you also need to had been used transactions on all operations that logically spanned the database boundary. Triggers have probably ensured this for deletes and updates because they run in the context of the parent operation, thus implicitly wrapping the cross db boundary operation in a transaction, but for inserts your application usually has to wrap the insert into parent and insert into child into a single transaction.
Consistency of recovery operations is the biggest hurdle with application split between different databases.
I cannot see the full solution for your problem, but you can use full backups with backups of transaction log.
first, you restore full backups on poth bases WITH NORECOVERY option, and then resore transaction-log backups WITH STOPAT='xxxxxxxx' on both bases. So you can get both databases restored on same point of time.
The best way to do this is to fix it at the point you're doing the backup. Most multi-database apps do this:
Prior to backup, execute a command to write a marked transaction in the transaction log of each database involved. (BEGIN TRANSACTION WITH MARK) Then do the backups.
That way, you can later do a RESTORE WITH STOPAT MARK to get them all to the same point in time. It's not perfect but much closer than other methods.
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
This question might be kind of elementary, but here goes:
I have a SQL Server database with a 4 GB log file. The DB is 16GB and is backed up nightly.
Can I truncate the log regularly because the entire DB+Log is backed up each night?
you can something like this to you maintenance schedule to run every night before the backup. This will try to shrink/truncate your log file to 1 meg
BACKUP LOG DBNAME
TO disk = 'D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Backup\DBNAME.log'
DBCC SHRINKFILE('DBNAME_Log', 1)
Are you sure the log is backed up nightly and not just the database?
If so, then what does this database do? Are you deleting and refreshing whole tables? If so, your log might be the right size for the amount of transactions you have. You want the log to be large enough to handle your normal transaction load without having to grow. A small log can be a detriment to performance.
If this database is not transactional in nature (i.e., the tables are populated by full refreshes rather than one record ata time), the change the recovery mode to simple. Do not do that though if you have transactional tables that you will need to be able to recover from the log rahter than simply re-importing the data.
If you can run log backups during the day (depending on load, etc. this may or may not be possible for you) you can keep the log file under control by doing so. This will prevent the log file itself from growing quite so large, and also provide the side benefit of giving you the ability to restore closer to the point of failure in the event of a problem.
You'll still need to shrink the log file once using DBCC SHRINKFILE, but if it's backed up regularly after that point it shouldn't stabilize at a smaller size.