Copy database backup files over the network

Hello!
We are using SQLSafe software to backup/compress our databases. We would
like to copy backup files (could be as big as 400GB compressed) to the
different computer within the same network. I know there are tools like
robocopy,xcopy etc. that are suitable for this job. I was wondering if
anybody can share his/her own experience in copying big backup files.
Ideally, we wouldn't like to saturate our network/cpu resources while
copying these files.
Thanks,
Igor
Hi
I find it best to have the backup software stripe the backup over multiple
files. This enables you to re-start a failed copy without having to re-copy
all 399GB
Also, add a dedicated NIC (Fiber, 1GBit or faster) onto the 2 servers, so
that they do not copy this file over the production network, affecting normal
queries.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"imarchenko" wrote:

> Hello!
> We are using SQLSafe software to backup/compress our databases. We would
> like to copy backup files (could be as big as 400GB compressed) to the
> different computer within the same network. I know there are tools like
> robocopy,xcopy etc. that are suitable for this job. I was wondering if
> anybody can share his/her own experience in copying big backup files.
> Ideally, we wouldn't like to saturate our network/cpu resources while
> copying these files.
> Thanks,
> Igor
>
>
|||Thanks Mike! We are striping backup over multiple files. We just want to
copy backup to the different computer, once it si completed, in the most
efficient way. Thanks for your tip regarding dedicated NIC.
Igor
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:E6EB48F8-4D11-48DD-B2A2-FA1F46334344@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> I find it best to have the backup software stripe the backup over multiple
> files. This enables you to re-start a failed copy without having to
> re-copy
> all 399GB
> Also, add a dedicated NIC (Fiber, 1GBit or faster) onto the 2 servers, so
> that they do not copy this file over the production network, affecting
> normal
> queries.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "imarchenko" wrote:

Copy database backup files over the network

Hello!
We are using SQLSafe software to backup/compress our databases. We would
like to copy backup files (could be as big as 400GB compressed) to the
different computer within the same network. I know there are tools like
robocopy,xcopy etc. that are suitable for this job. I was wondering if
anybody can share his/her own experience in copying big backup files.
Ideally, we wouldn't like to saturate our network/cpu resources while
copying these files.
Thanks,
IgorHi
I find it best to have the backup software stripe the backup over multiple
files. This enables you to re-start a failed copy without having to re-copy
all 399GB
Also, add a dedicated NIC (Fiber, 1GBit or faster) onto the 2 servers, so
that they do not copy this file over the production network, affecting norma
l
queries.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"imarchenko" wrote:

> Hello!
> We are using SQLSafe software to backup/compress our databases. We woul
d
> like to copy backup files (could be as big as 400GB compressed) to the
> different computer within the same network. I know there are tools like
> robocopy,xcopy etc. that are suitable for this job. I was wondering if
> anybody can share his/her own experience in copying big backup files.
> Ideally, we wouldn't like to saturate our network/cpu resources while
> copying these files.
> Thanks,
> Igor
>
>|||Thanks Mike! We are striping backup over multiple files. We just want to
copy backup to the different computer, once it si completed, in the most
efficient way. Thanks for your tip regarding dedicated NIC.
Igor
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:E6EB48F8-4D11-48DD-B2A2-FA1F46334344@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> I find it best to have the backup software stripe the backup over multiple
> files. This enables you to re-start a failed copy without having to
> re-copy
> all 399GB
> Also, add a dedicated NIC (Fiber, 1GBit or faster) onto the 2 servers, so
> that they do not copy this file over the production network, affecting
> normal
> queries.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "imarchenko" wrote:
>

Converting SQL Server 2000 database to 2005 format

Hello!
We have attached our 500GB SQL Server 2000 databases on 2005 server. The
process took literally took 10 seconds. I was wondering if databases should
undergo low level conversion when moved to 2005 environment in order to take
full advantage of new features. Will simply attaching the databases do the
job?
We are planning to switch databases to 9.0 compatibility mode. I am aware
certain features have been deprecated. Besides that I am concerned we won't
be able to take full advantage of new 2005 features unless we do low level
conversion. If this is the case, is there a way to initiate this process
after attaching the database ?
Any help is greatly appreciated,
Igor
There really is no low level conversion to take place. Most of the changes
are meta data and with the system and resource databases. It is highly
recommended that you run sp_updatestats after you attach it or better yet
after you set the mode to 9.0. Once you do that you will have full access
to the 2005 feature set.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OMvyLypLGHA.2216@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> We have attached our 500GB SQL Server 2000 databases on 2005 server.
> The process took literally took 10 seconds. I was wondering if databases
> should undergo low level conversion when moved to 2005 environment in
> order to take full advantage of new features. Will simply attaching the
> databases do the job?
> We are planning to switch databases to 9.0 compatibility mode. I am aware
> certain features have been deprecated. Besides that I am concerned we
> won't be able to take full advantage of new 2005 features unless we do low
> level conversion. If this is the case, is there a way to initiate this
> process after attaching the database ?
> Any help is greatly appreciated,
> Igor
>
|||Andrew,
Thanks a lot!
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:O1f2TcqLGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> There really is no low level conversion to take place. Most of the
> changes are meta data and with the system and resource databases. It is
> highly recommended that you run sp_updatestats after you attach it or
> better yet after you set the mode to 9.0. Once you do that you will have
> full access to the 2005 feature set.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OMvyLypLGHA.2216@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>

Converting SQL Server 2000 database to 2005 format

Hello!
We have attached our 500GB SQL Server 2000 databases on 2005 server. The
process took literally took 10 seconds. I was wondering if databases should
undergo low level conversion when moved to 2005 environment in order to take
full advantage of new features. Will simply attaching the databases do the
job?
We are planning to switch databases to 9.0 compatibility mode. I am aware
certain features have been deprecated. Besides that I am concerned we won't
be able to take full advantage of new 2005 features unless we do low level
conversion. If this is the case, is there a way to initiate this process
after attaching the database ?
Any help is greatly appreciated,
IgorThere really is no low level conversion to take place. Most of the changes
are meta data and with the system and resource databases. It is highly
recommended that you run sp_updatestats after you attach it or better yet
after you set the mode to 9.0. Once you do that you will have full access
to the 2005 feature set.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OMvyLypLGHA.2216@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> We have attached our 500GB SQL Server 2000 databases on 2005 server.
> The process took literally took 10 seconds. I was wondering if databases
> should undergo low level conversion when moved to 2005 environment in
> order to take full advantage of new features. Will simply attaching the
> databases do the job?
> We are planning to switch databases to 9.0 compatibility mode. I am aware
> certain features have been deprecated. Besides that I am concerned we
> won't be able to take full advantage of new 2005 features unless we do low
> level conversion. If this is the case, is there a way to initiate this
> process after attaching the database ?
> Any help is greatly appreciated,
> Igor
>|||Andrew,
Thanks a lot!
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:O1f2TcqLGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> There really is no low level conversion to take place. Most of the
> changes are meta data and with the system and resource databases. It is
> highly recommended that you run sp_updatestats after you attach it or
> better yet after you set the mode to 9.0. Once you do that you will have
> full access to the 2005 feature set.
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OMvyLypLGHA.2216@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>