Backup SQL and QB db's

[WarEagle]

My company has a Windows Server 2003 running SQL 2005 and Quickbooks databases. We are currently using Symantec Backup Exec and it's done a good job for a long time. We are upgrading to Windows Server 2008 64-bit and we can't find the Backup Exec disc and I doubt it will install on the 64-bit OS anyways.

Backup Exec is a very expensive software product so I'm exploring alternatives before making that investment.

Someone suggested we just use the Maintenance Plan feature of SQL Server 2005 Management Studio and just schedule daily backups of the db's. Same idea with the Quickbooks db's (just use the built-in backup features).

Anybody out there use a good, affordable software for backing up open files such as the SQL db's?

[DiscoBayJoe]

Quickbooks has a good in-app online backup service. QB typically has a slow data change rate and as such can easily be backed up online.

SQL data change rates can vary widely. My reccomendation would be to install the new server as a VM, setup the SQL-Native backups, then back up the whole VM with a VM-Friendly backup tool.... ideally offsite/online if your connection can support it (tapes are dinasaurs... or should I say Black Powder Rifles).

[nick]

SQL 2005 built-in backup should be fine for that. BackupExec doesn't really add much value to it, not like something like LiteSpeed or RedGate. How big are your databases?

Just schedule maintenance plan and do a test restore somewhere every now and then. You can then pick up the resulting backup files with BackupExec or whatever else you use.

If you insist on using BackupExec (never used that with SQL, and I don't think I'd recommend it. There's better backup software for SQL out there, and BackupExec never worked with anything database-driven well, not even Exchange), and you have a maintenance agreement with Symantec, you can download the newer software from their site. If not, renewing a maintenance agreement might be cheaper than buying new software.

I wouldn't virtualize SQL unless you know what you're doing. You can get a performance hit or performance improvement depending on how you do it. Also, unless you go with free ESXi or Hyper-V, licensing for it would be way higher than the cost of BackupExec. And you won't get much SQL performance out of the free VMware or Microsoft offerings (hint - there're built-in limits on VM performance depending on your license).

[msteel]

Have a look at ARCserve D2D, Its not super versatile like BackupExec but very easy to administer and wont put a big dent in your budget. I'm quite pleased with it.

[odysseus]

I wouldn't virtualize SQL unless you know what you're doing. You can get a performance hit or performance improvement depending on how you do it. Also, unless you go with free ESXi or Hyper-V, licensing for it would be way higher than the cost of BackupExec. And you won't get much SQL performance out of the free VMware or Microsoft offerings (hint - there're built-in limits on VM performance depending on your license).

That's key right there for the VM conversation. It's not cheap for the enterprise level offerings which most SQL VMs should be based on.

[nosuchagency]

red gate is a wonderful product. i've been using it for several years without any issues. it's a couple hundred bucks and offers compression, as well as some other nice scheduling features. were you also using backup exec to backup entire network, or just the dbs?