By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
443,760 Members | 1,644 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 443,760 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

SQL Server 2000 Backup + Restore question

P: n/a

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
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply

P: n/a
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.