Comments
Sort by recent activity
If the account has access to the files and the account is the one used by SQL Backup, then I'm at a loss. When everything is lined up correctly, this works fine. I'll see if we can get one of the developers to take a look. / comments
If the account has access to the files and the account is the one used by SQL Backup, then I'm at a loss. When everything is lined up correctly, this works fine. I'll see if we can get one of the d...
Can you validate that the account actually does have the rights by logging in as that account and then navigating to the correct share? / comments
Can you validate that the account actually does have the rights by logging in as that account and then navigating to the correct share?
I just saw this for the first time. I've alerted the Dev team (although I'm sure they're already working on it). / comments
I just saw this for the first time. I've alerted the Dev team (although I'm sure they're already working on it).
No, last time I used Redgate Backup was on the 1.0 version. / comments
No, last time I used Redgate Backup was on the 1.0 version.
The original version had a 2tb limit, but the new version supports up to 64tb. 500gb should be pretty easy. With my own databases I've done 300gb and I know we've done larger. If you're getting an error, could you please contact support to let them know what it is?
There are a large (and growing) number of organizations successfully using the tool. There is even a published case study available online. / comments
The original version had a 2tb limit, but the new version supports up to 64tb. 500gb should be pretty easy. With my own databases I've done 300gb and I know we've done larger. If you're getting an ...
Also, internal testing shows it's actually faster with Redgate backup, so if you're hitting an issue, our tech guys need to know about it. / comments
Also, internal testing shows it's actually faster with Redgate backup, so if you're hitting an issue, our tech guys need to know about it.
Check out the Support web page located here. / comments
Check out the Support web page located here.
Clearly, it depends is the opening statement here.
I prefer them in the same solution but different projects. Two reasons for this. One, having them in different projects makes it easy to work on them separately as needed and reduces their overall footprint. If you don't need the app code (or the database code) you don't have to have it. Two, because they're in the same solution, you can lable and/or branch them together. It's really important, in my opinion anyway, that what gets released to production from either the database or the app code is marked and labeled together so that you always know which version of which you're deploying. This makes rollbacks, provisioning and oh, so many other processes, safer and more accurate.
You can absolutely get into a dance around the details, but that's my 1.5 cents worth. / comments
Clearly, it depends is the opening statement here.
I prefer them in the same solution but different projects. Two reasons for this. One, having them in different projects makes it easy to work on t...
That's odd behavior. I'll see if someone from the team can look into it. / comments
That's odd behavior. I'll see if someone from the team can look into it.
I've been running it on a 200gb backup and it takes around 40 minutes (on very weak hardware) to create an image. However, it's a single file backup. I haven't tested it on a multi-file backup yet. / comments
I've been running it on a 200gb backup and it takes around 40 minutes (on very weak hardware) to create an image. However, it's a single file backup. I haven't tested it on a multi-file backup yet.