Timeline for The smallest backup possible ... with SQL Server
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:42 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://dba.stackexchange.com/ with https://dba.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 8, 2011 at 6:56 | comment | added | Marian | I agree with you on that, the thing is that commercial tools have better compression rates than the MS one and they are configurable (by no of CPUs allocated to the operation), they offer encryption..and other features. I don't necessarily praise them (they're not very cheap), I just said that some of them can be used in conjunction with current backups of SQL Server (full, diff, log) without changing the environment, which guys seem to need/want. @jcolebrand: got it, thank you! | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 4:46 | comment | added | gbn | @Marian: there is a limit to compression and more compression = more CPU/time. The smallest backup will be the one with the least input = a differential, regardless of compression tool/format. Link about time/ratio One: you can gave extreme compression but it takes longer and for a compressed 30 GB file it could take longer than the FTP... | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 21:15 | comment | added | jcolebrand♦ | @Marian I'm ... pretty sure Brent O is just a consultant at need. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 20:52 | comment | added | Marian | Hyperbac is a very smart compression tool, that allows one to compress backups and leave all maintenance plans and jobs unchanged, because it handles files at OS level. If they don't want to change anything, but just add a new tool to the box, they should definitely give it a shot. I know I've used it and loved it for SQL 2005. But for more compression they should still do some manual labor... | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 19:26 | history | edited | gbn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1536 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2011 at 8:47 | history | answered | gbn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |