| Author |
Topic |
|
ruan4u
Posting Yak Master
132 Posts |
 Posted - 2004-10-01 : 09:54:26
|
| i see mastlog$4IDR file .The file extension also says File.I do have a master.mdf. Any inputs |
|
|
RickD
Slow But Sure Yak Herding Master
3608 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 07:32:19
|
| Are you running BackupExec by any chance??This is the Instance that backupexec uses for it's own purposes.. |
 |
|
|
ruan4u
Posting Yak Master
132 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 10:26:06
|
| So can i delete this? |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-04 : 13:42:22
|
| I certainly wouldn't. But why are you using BackupExec to backup SQL databases?Tara |
|
|
|
RickD
Slow But Sure Yak Herding Master
3608 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-05 : 05:11:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by tduggan
I certainly wouldn't. But why are you using BackupExec to backup SQL databases?Tara
A lot of places i've worked seem to want to do this.. I think it has something to do with not getting a SQL person in until they really have to, so the network guys (who use BackupExec all the time) seem to think using the Veritas SQL Agent is a good idea as it says it is in the documentation!!As for ruan4u's question. If you want the possibility of SQL not working again, then go ahead!! Seriously though, just leave them there, it's easier.. Otherwise you have to reinstall everything.. The easiest way to make sure they're not used again is to uninstall the Veritas SQL Agent from BackupExec.. This will leave the files there and the instance will start, but nothing will ever access it.. Whether you then uninstall the instance or not is up to you... |
|
|
|
benna
Starting Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-06 : 00:41:01
|
| So why is using the SQL Agent and Backup exec a bad idea? This is a solution that has been recommended to me by one of our consultants. We haven't bought anything yet so any advice on SQL back-ups and what we should be using would be appreciated.Thanks |
|
|
|
franco
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
255 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-06 : 02:13:41
|
| I think it's a common and general way of thinking that for backing up SQL Server databases it may be better to use what SQL Server itself gives to you.So you know that you can be just fine if you take backup with SQL Server to disk and then you can use whatever you want to copy these backup files to tape.The problem with backup it's not the backup itself, the problem could be the restore operation.Backup is just one part of the all scenario, but we all do backups just to be able to manage a good restore operation when we need to do it.When you use agents you really never know what could happens in the restore operation, especially if you have to restore some critical db like master db.Just my 2 or 3 cents.Franco |
|
|
|
benna
Starting Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-06 : 02:24:05
|
| That's what we do at the minute we use SQL Backup and then backup the BAK file to tape or CD. From what you're saying this should be suffice. The argument for using the sql agent for backup exec that was put to me was that you can't do online SQL backups without it. From the half hour research I have just done it appears that is infact rubbish.Thanks Franco. |
|
|
|
franco
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
255 Posts |
Posted - 2004-10-06 : 02:36:36
|
| Of course you can do online backup!More than that you can to transaction log backup and keep these files for the time you need.We do full backup at 8PM, transaction log backup every hour starting at 7AM util 7PM and we copy these files to another location on another Server some minutes after the backup succeeds.Then we copy all these files on tape.CheersFranco |
|
|
|
|
Master database