MSSQL backup vs Netbackup SQL 2

[gallows]

We have Netbackup 5.1 mp2 on Solaris box. I have 2 Windows boxes with SQL DBs I need to back up.
I was thinking about using the Backup/Restore features in SQL to perform the backups, and then use Netbackup to just backup the backup files created by SQL.

Is there anything wrong with this or should I just use Netbackup SQL for everything?

Our DB isn't that big, about 5gb. I was able to restore the DB in about 5 min to a different machine.

Any thoughts or advice is appreciated.

Gallows

 

[nbkp25v]

Back in the 3.4 days, we attempted the SQL agent (patch 645). Our DBA's didn't like the restart procedure and opted to dump the DB's to flat files.

We now use a filer to dump the DB's to, and place them in dated folders. We then use expressions within the policy to do forever-incremental backups on the filer (700 GB/night)

This way we are able to dump the flat file to a DR volume on the filer, and the DBA group does their rebuild of the DB. I do not have to worry about using the SQL Agent to redirect the restore to a DR location.

We are using NBU 5.1 MP4 on Solaris, HP-UX, and Windows master servers.

Hope this helps...........
Bob

Thanks,
Bob

 

[gallows]

Thanks Bob!!
What is a filer?
"expressions within the policy for incremental" - Are you saying that you still use Netbackup for this, but not the SQL agent?

I'm a little confused)

Gallows

 

[nbkp25v]

Filer = a SAN attached disk sub-system. (i.e. NetApp, EMC, Hitachi).

Expressions within the policy = Wildcards within the backup selection tab on the policy.

We opted to use a standard Windows-NT policy and capture the flat files from the filer.

The DBA's would dump their DB's to the filer in dated folders. In order to not capture the same data each evening, we would use wildcards within the file system path on the policies.

Hope this makes more sense. If not, let me know and I can explain further.

Thanks,
Bob

 

[johnny99]

I use the NBU SQL client on all my SQL servers (from 6.5 to 2003) and that is by fare the way I like it most.
Nothing wrong in letting SQL server dump your data to a fil and then back it up using a normal file backup.

But it takes a lot of extra diskspace and when you restore you will have to first restore the file to the fileshare and after that restore the file into your SQL server.
And you will also need some kind of scripting to manage your SQL backups to the fileshare.

Where I have seen that "backup to a fileshare" used most often are in shops where it is the DBA's that handle everything around backup and restore of databases but don't have anything to do with NBU.

Most NBU admins like to keep everything in one place I think.

/johnny

 

[gallows]

Thanks Bob. That makes it a little more clearer)

Johnny - You bring up a good point that I was thinking about. And that is I am not a DBA and we don't have one)
I was able to do a full backup and restore and I remember having to get everyone off the system before I was able to do the job. I can't remember if it was for the backup or restore.

If I used Netbackup to do the backup/restore, I don't think I will have that problem.

Gallows

 

[johnny99]

Restoring a database on SQL-server always req. that there isn't any users on it (only the database you want to restore not all the databases on the SQL server)
Doesn't matter if you use NBU or SQL-servers own backup/restore.

By the way: NBU uses the built-in backup/restore functions in SQL-server. It just redirects the datastream to NBU.

/johnny

 

[gallows]

Ok Johnny. Thanks again. In that case I'll opt for the NBU method since I won't have to worry about writing any scripts.)