From: Coop on
Jeffrey, thanks for your feedback. There are a couple factors that influence
my question re full vs simple. I do indeed use a maint plan to do DB and
tran log backups for any DBs that are not already installed by default with
simple mode. However, a frustrating problem for me is that my maint plans
don't reliably expire previous backups, so they accumulate on the volume
where I store them and I have to delete them manually. I've experienced this
with 2000 and now 2005. Of course, I do need to research the issue again and
hopefully find a proper solution.

Secondly, I work with a network admin who insists on relying on Symantec
Backup Exec to recover databases. He doesn't seem too interested in dealing
with point-in-time restores. It works well, but to the best of my knowledge,
doesn't manage tran log backups/restores. Again, I'll revisit the
capabilities of Backup Exec.

Finally, i mispoke about "managing user expectations". I agree that
business requirements should drive my backup & restore policy, and will
develop the policy with business users.

"Jeffrey Williams" wrote:

> I would agree with Tibor - if you are confident that you can live with a
> loss of up to 30+ hours of data then change them. However, I am concerned
> with your reasons for wanting to do so. I do not understand what kind of
> issues you are having managing transaction logs. Once you setup your
> transaction log backups - and back up your transaction logs on a frequent
> basis (every hour would be a good start), the log file will settle at the
> largest size it needs to be in that hour time frame.
> Honestly, it sounds to me like you are not performing any transaction log
> backups and instead are truncating the log and shrinking it on a regular
> basis. This is a bad idea for a lot of reasons, but if that is what you
> are doing then setting to simple accomplishes the same thing.
> And finally, your convenience should not determine the business requirements
> for restoring the system. That decision is entirely the responsibility of
> the business owners of the data.
> Good luck,
> Jeff
> "Tibor Karaszi" <> wrote in
> message news:#ssPSLM3KHA.556(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> I can manage
> >> user expectations that I can recover to last full backup as of previous
> >> night, or for small DBs, I can take multiple full backups during the day.
> >
> > If you really, really feel confident with above, then go ahead. I've never
> > heard about any software that would require full recovery model. In fact,
> > the recovery model was introduced (in 2000, compared to what we had in
> > earlier versions) to do just that: make the backup-option setting not
> > affect application code.
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Coop" <Coop(a)> wrote in message
> > news:8B580AFC-F1AB-49F0-8728-0447723E06AB(a)
> >> In general, is there any harm in making all databses Simple recovery
> >> other
> >> than losing ability to recover point-in-time? Do some products require
> >> that
> >> their databases are in Full mode for some internal maintenence proceses
> >> to
> >> work? I have about 30 production databases on a SQL Server 2005 Standard
> >> server. I'd like to switch all DBs to Simple Recovery model as I'm tired
> >> of
> >> managing tranlog growth and backups. The DBs vary in size from 10MB to
> >> 3GB.
> >> I don't necessarily need point-in-time recovery for any of them. I can
> >> manage
> >> user expectations that I can recover to last full backup as of previous
> >> night, or for small DBs, I can take multiple full backups during the day.
> >> Some DBs are already in Simple mode, as I think some product
> >> installations
> >> probably installed their DBs in Simple mode. Thanks for your feedback.
> >