KingMongo Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Hello, We have a Windows 2000 Server box which hosts a SQL Server. When the Server is up, naturally most of the tables and databases are in use, and cannot be backed up. We rely on the SQL Server application to manage live backups of the databases to another location, which Retrospect backs up. However, I'm wondering if this machine's backups take longer to complete because these files are failing to be backed up. It's obviously a waste of time for Retrospect to back up these folders, but how *much* of a waste of time? Is there a way to quantify this? Should I actually exclude the directory holding all of the databases from being backed up, and if so, would that appreciably increase the speed of my backups for this machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natew Posted August 15, 2003 Report Share Posted August 15, 2003 Hi It should not make much differnce at all. As soon as Retrospect tries to scan the files it will get a "file in use" error and move right along. I'd just let it go. If your backups are taking too long we should probably look into other possible causes. Nate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.