469,621 Members | 1,746 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,621 developers. It's quick & easy.

SQL Server 2000 Backup + Restore question

Of course I'll try this before I go live, but I figured I'd ask
here first. I've read the docs, and the answer is unclear.

My current backup strategy is:

Take a full database backup occasionally (like, every two weeks).
Back up logs every five minutes.

This works, but restoring the database all the way through can
take a while, as I've sometimes spun through 800+ log restores.

I'd like to change to

Take a full database backup occasionally (like, every two weeks).
Take a differential backup every day.
Back up logs every five minutes.

So, I'd have this set of backups after day two

LOGS 1-100
LOGS 101-200

When I go to restore, do I always have to do
LOGS 101-200

or can I do

LOGS 1-100
LOGS 101-200?

I guess what I'm really asking is: is there any reason to keep
the "old" logs around (in this case 1-100), if I assume I always
have the latest differential?

I suppose I *might* need them to do a "point in time" restore,
LOGS 1-53.

but assuming I never want to do that, can I discard the logs
that are earlier than my latest differential?
Sep 28 '05 #1
1 1618
Your understanding is correct - "full + all logs" or "full + diff +
logs since diff" are effectively the same thing, but as you say, using
differential backups can significantly reduce the time to restore.
Being able to do a point in time restore is the only thing you would
need the intermediate logs for, unless you want to keep them just in
case you lose or corrupt the differential backups.


Sep 29 '05 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by datapro01 | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by Seguros Catatumbo | last post: by
reply views Thread by gheharukoh7 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.