Sql Server backup vs HP Data Protector (HPDP) -- Do *not* use SQL Server?

[Le]

Our HP representatives are telling us that backing/restoring our MS SQL
Servers with "HP Data Protector (HPDP)" is better and safer than using
MS Sql's backup/restore process.

I have strong hesitations, because MS Sql's processes gives us a great
deal of flexability.

Has anyone have any experience wsith "HP Data Protector (HPDP)"?

[m.bohse]

I worked with HPDP and don't see any features why it would be safer or
better than SQL backup. In fact I found it much harder to configure,
but to be honest it did the job. What I remember as particular annoying
was that you could't schedule t-log backups like every 30 min. In order
to achieve that you had to create sevral schedules which run like 8:00
every day, 8:30 every day etc.
So personally I would still make SQL backups and then copy the files
with DP to tape.
M

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Le" <Th********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

Our HP representatives are telling us that backing/restoring our MS SQL
Servers with "HP Data Protector (HPDP)" is better and safer than using
MS Sql's backup/restore process.

Better/safer how?

For some VLDB, I can see advantages with 3rd party backup software, but
overall, in most cases, I haven't seen them necessary.

I have strong hesitations, because MS Sql's processes gives us a great
deal of flexability.

Has anyone have any experience wsith "HP Data Protector (HPDP)"?

[Le]

>>Better/safer how?

It was not explained to me. Our It department has been pushing very
hard to implement HP's Data Protector, and has made it known that HP
recommends their system over Microsoft SQL sever's normal
backup/restore system.

Currently our SQL Server dumps/restore process works perfectly, so I am
very perplexed by our IT department's push.

[David Portas]

> has made it known that HP

recommends their system over Microsoft SQL sever's normal
backup/restore system.

HP recommend their own products? You don't say!

I don't know this particular one but in my experience the main benefits of
third party storage/recovery management software are around simplifying the
implementation and management of your storage and backup policies. In an
environment where you have many and varied requirements for backup and
recovery that can certainly save a lot of effort. On the other hand if you
only have a few servers with one or two backup cycles you'll probably get on
just fine with SQL Server's own maintenance plans.

--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

"Le" <Th********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

Better/safer how?

It was not explained to me. Our It department has been pushing very
hard to implement HP's Data Protector, and has made it known that HP
recommends their system over Microsoft SQL sever's normal
backup/restore system.

Currently our SQL Server dumps/restore process works perfectly, so I am
very perplexed by our IT department's push.