October 9, 2008 at 10:35 am
As our SQL server environment continues to grow, we are starting to look at 3rd party backup solutions. The two I keep seeing are:
Red Gate SQL backup
and
Quest Lite Speed backup
Does anyone have experience using both?
Is one better than the other?
What are the main differences between the two? Does one stand out?
Things I am looking for are:
-Better backups
-Faster backups
-fast restores, easy restores
-maybe restore a table.
-restore database into another database on different server
Lots of flexibility and options.
Also, this would probably integrate into our NetBackup solution.
I appreciate the help and feedback.
Cheers.
Jason
October 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm
not sure about NetBackup, I have not used that product, so I couldn't tell you if either product will integrate, but I can tell you I have run comparisons of the 2 products (redgate and quest)
Our criteria was:
1. speed of backups and restores
2. Compression rate
Using the lightest compression settings without disabling compression completely, we found that Litespeed outperformed the redgate product. Litespeed also comes with a log explorer as a bonus, at least it did when we purchased it last year.
October 9, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I prefer Idera's SQLSafe because you can restore an individual table without having to restore the entire Database - Handy if your database is 700 Gig like mine. Redgate can only do this if you also buy 2 other products. I don't know about Litespeed.
October 10, 2008 at 5:27 pm
We did some comparison's between RedGate, Idera and Litespeed a long time ago, and Litespeed won out. We've been using Litespeed at my current job for about two years, and at my previous job for a couple of years too. Litespeed also has a lot of tweaking parameters that can fine tune your backup size, speed, amount of resources it uses during backups, etc. They also have Native command substitution and extraction into SQL Native format capabilities. They were the best at compression Vs. speed.
October 10, 2008 at 7:05 pm
... because you can restore an individual table without having to restore the entire Database
Restoring an invididual table from a backup may not always give you the same data compared to if you had restored the entire database. See here for details.
SQL BAK Explorer - read SQL Server backup file details without SQL Server.
Supports backup files created with SQL Server 2005 up to SQL Server 2017.
October 11, 2008 at 4:39 am
out of the 2 i prefer Redgate SQL Backup!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
October 23, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Litespeed supports advanced compression, faster restores and also Object level recovery. I am not sure about the cost effectiveness though..
Thanks!!
The_SQL_DBA
MCTS
"Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives."
October 24, 2008 at 2:48 pm
You could also look at Hyperbac.
October 24, 2008 at 10:18 pm
We are deploying Hyperbac at my current employer. It does what we need, allows us to use native SQL Server Backup/Restore commands, does well on compression, and has decreased backup/restore times by about 50%. More importantly, it was also less expensive and the team at Hyperbac (located in Australia) was very responsive taking the effort to call us during our business hours (o dark thirty down under!).
Best thing I could suggest, howver, is get the evaluation copies of the different packages, and run your own tests. Select the product that best fits your needs: speed/time/cost/etc.
You are the one that has to make the recommendation to the powers that be on which product you think best serves your organization.
😎
October 26, 2008 at 1:02 am
lite speed 100gb backup to 10 gb in 10 min –cost approx $4000.you also have table restores. litespeed rocks...
October 26, 2008 at 1:50 am
Hi Everyone,
I've been doing extensive tests of both products: Quest LiteSpeed and RedGate SQLBackup (also other products but, that's not important here).
Comparing their speed and backup compression level, they're almost equal. RedGate has better GUI :-), LiteSpeed offers better integration and command line support.
Currently I'm using (over 1 year) RedGate SQLBackup and I'm happy with it. It was cheap and very effective solution to our problems with backup/restore.
LiteSpeed may be better, but it's definetely much more expensive (can't tell how much because it's price is confidential and may vary).
One last thing about LiteSpeed, if you really need table restore or page restore functionality, then RedGate isn't that good, to do such thigs you must also buy other products from RedGate (sometimes you can buy them all in one bundle), I'm not sure in this point, but I think, that RedGate SQL Data Compare could do the trick :-).
Regards
Slawomir Swietoniowski, MCITP:DBA+Developer (2005/2008)
October 29, 2008 at 10:31 am
About four years ago one of my client databases grew so large that native SQL backup ran over 8 hours (longer than the window of time available) and we decided to use LiteSpeed because another DBA in the organization had already installed it for another client. I experienced 70-80% compression in about 50% runtime. Unfortunately, the high cost prevented me from installing for my other client database, so we now had two distinct backup and restore methodologies across 25 SQL servers. About a year later I downloaded a trial of RedGate SQL Backup and was pleased to see very similar results for both compression and performance. I was able to purchase 10 copies of SQL Backup Lite (without compression) for about the same price as 1 copy of LiteSpeed. Earlier this year I upgraded these copies to SQL Backup Pro for 64-bit support and encryption. My personal preference is RedGate because it provided the required functionality at a significantly lower price.
I also had tested restoring individual tables using LiteSpeed. The original client database was 1.2 TB and the process required nearly as much time as restoring the complete database.
October 29, 2008 at 11:23 am
Sr SQL developer (10/29/2008)
I was able to purchase 10 copies of SQL Backup Lite (without compression) for about the same price as 1 copy of LiteSpeed.
The Lite version does support compression, albeit only one level. The Pro edition supports 3 levels of compression.
SQL BAK Explorer - read SQL Server backup file details without SQL Server.
Supports backup files created with SQL Server 2005 up to SQL Server 2017.
October 29, 2008 at 11:49 am
Sorry, my error. I meant to say that SQL Backup Lite does not support encryption.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 50 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply