Options
SQL Server 2000 Backups to Remote Server Failing
Alright, this one's going to hurt some heads. . .
At my work, we have a customer that needs to have some SQL Server 2000 databases backed up on a regular basis. He's currently configured his servers (each running Windows 2000 Server, I believe) to back up the databases via the SQL Server 2000 manager to a remote server which we provide to him as a backup location. (This server runs Windows 2003 Server). There are two facts which are very key to this whole operation:
One is this, from our hardware engineer, regarding the backup server they rent from us:
And the error the customer is seeing when his backups fail is the following:
So, we're left with a couple of problems. As the databases are being backed up by the SQL backup utility, they are timing out. Sometimes the event logs on the remote server show that the write-operation for a file that is only a few megs big takes up to an hour and a half. . . then times out. After much discussion, and the customer insisting that our network is congested, we've come to the conclusion that the backup server we've provided for them can't handle having multiple files backed up to it at once, and the server being backed up from can't handle creating multiple SQL Server backups at the same time, for the very same reason: the hard drives simply aren't fast enough, and can't handle interactive read/write operations of this scope.
We'd like the customer to either back up the databases locally, staggering the backup jobs so that they don't cause the hard drive to crap out, and then have the .BAK files backed up by the Veritas Netbackup program that runs on the machine as well, which backs up all the rest of the customers files. (That's pretty much standard operations at our company, to have Netbackup back up their machines regularly.)
The other solution would be for the client to purchase a faster server, either through us and have us manage it, or through another vendor and manage it themselves, in our datacenter. The problem there, of course, is that it would a lot of money to get a high-end storage server with super-fast hard drives that can handle having a half-dozen, two-hundred meg files written to it at any given time.
The question I have, after all that rambling, is this. Does anyone know of any whitepapers, documentation, or any recorded cases we could reference, that would show this customer that what we've found is correct? They are refusing to back up the databases locally, they claim they can't stagger the backups because they 'have to happen at once', and they are adamantly refusing to consider a more powerful server to back up their databases to. We basically need some proof, something to show them that they're going to need to change something, since test after test has shown that it's not the network that's lagging, the hard drives are simply not able to keep up with the amount of data streaming in; especially when it happens to be SQL Server databases, which seem to be notorious for error-checking and are, in effect, still being written to and queried as they're being backed up.
Any links to recommendations by Microsoft to this effect, recommendations by hardware vendors, or simply links and pages that show that this has happened before, would be helpful. Any other solutions to this problem would probably help, too, in case there is some 'gotcha' that our team doesn't see.
At my work, we have a customer that needs to have some SQL Server 2000 databases backed up on a regular basis. He's currently configured his servers (each running Windows 2000 Server, I believe) to back up the databases via the SQL Server 2000 manager to a remote server which we provide to him as a backup location. (This server runs Windows 2003 Server). There are two facts which are very key to this whole operation:
One is this, from our hardware engineer, regarding the backup server they rent from us:
Max wrote:This is MS112 server with one GB connection and 2x400GB SATA RAID1.
The RAID1 is “chipset-integrated†inexpensive desktop solution that is not intended for DB operation.
Your assessment is correct – they should reduce the load on the disk and/or network system.
And the error the customer is seeing when his backups fail is the following:
log from 64.84.59.9 *************Log start BackupDiskFile::RequestDurableMedia: failure on backup device '\\Nsnovps00521\d$\SQL_Backups\ResTrack_dyn_db_200704040100.BAK'. Operating system error 64(The specified network name is no longer available.). ****************Log end log from 64.84.59.10 *************Log start BackupDiskFile::RequestDurableMedia: failure on backup device '\\Nsnovps00521\d$\SQL_Backups\ResTrack_jacobs_db_200704040131.BAK'. Operating system error 64(The specified network name is no longer available.). ****************Log end
So, we're left with a couple of problems. As the databases are being backed up by the SQL backup utility, they are timing out. Sometimes the event logs on the remote server show that the write-operation for a file that is only a few megs big takes up to an hour and a half. . . then times out. After much discussion, and the customer insisting that our network is congested, we've come to the conclusion that the backup server we've provided for them can't handle having multiple files backed up to it at once, and the server being backed up from can't handle creating multiple SQL Server backups at the same time, for the very same reason: the hard drives simply aren't fast enough, and can't handle interactive read/write operations of this scope.
We'd like the customer to either back up the databases locally, staggering the backup jobs so that they don't cause the hard drive to crap out, and then have the .BAK files backed up by the Veritas Netbackup program that runs on the machine as well, which backs up all the rest of the customers files. (That's pretty much standard operations at our company, to have Netbackup back up their machines regularly.)
The other solution would be for the client to purchase a faster server, either through us and have us manage it, or through another vendor and manage it themselves, in our datacenter. The problem there, of course, is that it would a lot of money to get a high-end storage server with super-fast hard drives that can handle having a half-dozen, two-hundred meg files written to it at any given time.
The question I have, after all that rambling, is this. Does anyone know of any whitepapers, documentation, or any recorded cases we could reference, that would show this customer that what we've found is correct? They are refusing to back up the databases locally, they claim they can't stagger the backups because they 'have to happen at once', and they are adamantly refusing to consider a more powerful server to back up their databases to. We basically need some proof, something to show them that they're going to need to change something, since test after test has shown that it's not the network that's lagging, the hard drives are simply not able to keep up with the amount of data streaming in; especially when it happens to be SQL Server databases, which seem to be notorious for error-checking and are, in effect, still being written to and queried as they're being backed up.
Any links to recommendations by Microsoft to this effect, recommendations by hardware vendors, or simply links and pages that show that this has happened before, would be helpful. Any other solutions to this problem would probably help, too, in case there is some 'gotcha' that our team doesn't see.
Free Microsoft Training: Microsoft Learn
Free PowerShell Resources: Top PowerShell Blogs
Free DevOps/Azure Resources: Visual Studio Dev Essentials
Let it never be said that I didn't do the very least I could do.
Comments
-
Options
TechJunky
Member Posts: 881
Ok, I think you are making this a bigger problem than stated...
First I noticed that you are using UNC naming for backup.... BAD IDEA.
Map \\Nsnovps00521\d$\SQL_Backups to a drive letter.... I then would suggest backing up the actual database, rather than creating a .bak file.
Use this script to backup data of your SQL database without having to start/stop the service...
osql -U "username" -P"password" -Q "backup database MyCompany to disk='G:\Mybackup.sav'"
So lets say your username is admin and your password is password, and your database name is MyCompany and your mapped network drive for your backups are G: Then this is what the command would look like.
osql -U username -Ppassword -Q "backup database MyCompany to disk='G:\Mybackup.sav'"
Make sure you use the single quote to offset the path for the data file.... Example: 'G:\Mybackup.sav' and double quotes to offset the query. So your sql query should end with a single quote followed by a double quote like I showed above.
If you need instructions on how to restore the database using the same method let me know. I use this for over 20 sites and this has worked great for me. -
Options
sprkymrk
Member Posts: 4,884 ■■■□□□□□□□
Off-topic reply to TechJunky - if you recommend this technique I would also recommend to make sure the script is protected from prying eyes. I never store user names and passwords in a script. I'm sure you have taken the necessary precautions but thought I would mention it for the sake of others reading this thread just as a reminder.
All things are possible, only believe. -
OptionsTechJunky
Member Posts: 881
Good info. I always use EFS. But good info for others. I should have also stated that during my last post.
Again, thanks for the good info!
Getting that login info could have created disasters if the wrong person got a hold of it.