Frequent Trans Log backups Vs Autogrow

Hi
Im doing some testing on mirroring at the moment, and have found out about
the inherent problems with transaction log size that thie replication
scenario entails. However I have found that frequent trans log backups are a
way around the problem - This sets the vast majority of VLFs in the trans log
to state 0 allowing them to be overwritten by new transactions VLF's.
Accordingly I dont need to autogrow half as often.
The question is which is the most harmful of system performance? frequent
trans log backups or autogrows? if i DO backup frequently i DONT need to
autogrow, and if i DONT back up frequently i DO need to autogrow...
which which people choose?
Cheers
Alastair Jones
Methodology Group
In SQL 2005 autogrows do not cause performance degradation they way they did
in SQL 2000. Backing up your transaction log should not cause performance
problems either. It may cause some performance problems with Full-text
search, but should not cause other problems.
So I normally backup every 15-20 minutes, unless I am log shipping where it
might be more to decrease my exposure to data loss. None of these
considerations should impact database mirroring though.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Methodology" <Methodology@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83043C4C-1FD2-4F7A-9E9B-9A0C1890908C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Im doing some testing on mirroring at the moment, and have found out about
> the inherent problems with transaction log size that thie replication
> scenario entails. However I have found that frequent trans log backups are
> a
> way around the problem - This sets the vast majority of VLFs in the trans
> log
> to state 0 allowing them to be overwritten by new transactions VLF's.
> Accordingly I dont need to autogrow half as often.
> The question is which is the most harmful of system performance? frequent
> trans log backups or autogrows? if i DO backup frequently i DONT need to
> autogrow, and if i DONT back up frequently i DO need to autogrow...
> which which people choose?
> Cheers
> Alastair Jones
> Methodology Group