Is there a hardcopy version of the Sql Server 2005 online books?

Does anyone know if there is a hardcopy book version of the Sql Server books online documentation? The online help is great but it would be nice to have a hardcopy of it too. My co-worker thought he saw a reference somewhere that gave you the option of purchasing a hardcopy format of the online help. But I can't find anything that says a hardcopy version is available to buy from Microsoft. Does this ring a bell?

Thanks!

There isn't, but it's a common request. Years ago we produced the content in paper form, but since we're over 48,000 pages now, not many people are interested in that many books on their shelf!

You can always copy and paste out of the pages you're interested in, although that might be a pain to do. We do have the suggestion in the hopper for printing, or saving, sections of BOL. Not sure what the timeline is at this point.

Buck Woody

http://www.buckwoody.com

|||Thanks for the reply, Buck! Hopefully in the future there will be some option for printing all or sections of BOL - I'll be on the lookout. Happy new Sql Server year!|||

Jlu,

You can try it here too....

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1006223&SiteID=1

|||

Yes, people like me who read all those thick books to know about ALL the features need them and are ready to pay big $$. Please publish at least some books - on T-SQL, DTS, Reporting Services, BI - a must!!!

Thank you.

Alexander

Is there a hardcopy version of the Sql Server 2005 online books?

Does anyone know if there is a hardcopy book version of the Sql Server books online documentation? The online help is great but it would be nice to have a hardcopy of it too. My co-worker thought he saw a reference somewhere that gave you the option of purchasing a hardcopy format of the online help. But I can't find anything that says a hardcopy version is available to buy from Microsoft. Does this ring a bell?

Thanks!

There isn't, but it's a common request. Years ago we produced the content in paper form, but since we're over 48,000 pages now, not many people are interested in that many books on their shelf!

You can always copy and paste out of the pages you're interested in, although that might be a pain to do. We do have the suggestion in the hopper for printing, or saving, sections of BOL. Not sure what the timeline is at this point.

Buck Woody

http://www.buckwoody.com

|||Thanks for the reply, Buck! Hopefully in the future there will be some option for printing all or sections of BOL - I'll be on the lookout. Happy new Sql Server year!|||

Jlu,

You can try it here too....

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1006223&SiteID=1

|||

Yes, people like me who read all those thick books to know about ALL the features need them and are ready to pay big $$. Please publish at least some books - on T-SQL, DTS, Reporting Services, BI - a must!!!

Thank you.

Alexander

Is tempdb big enough for what Im doing, plus other questions.

Hi All,

First, where can I get some questions of this sort answered?
Preferably, are there good books or online guides that I can consult for
these types of answers when necessary?

1. How do I know, when executing a query from Query Analyzer or
otherwise, how many temporary tables will be needed, and how big they
will be?
2. Where will those temporary tables be created? Always in tempdb?
3. If part of the estimated execution plan in Query Analyzer involves a
"Hash Match/Inner Join" with an estimated row count of 5 million, how
many tables will be created along the way?
4. What happens if tempdb doesn't have enough space to create a
temporary table in its entirety?
5. etc.

Those are just examples. I guess what I need is a good book on
query/script optimization, including selects, deletes, updates, etc,
that I can reference that will describe to me what is going on
internally when certain execution plans are executed.

Not only how to write optimized queries (use SARGs, etc), but why to
write a query one way over another.

Second, my current question regards an UPDATE I'm trying to get to run
in a reasonable amount of time.

It has to update 11 million rows of a 175 million row table. I did the
math, and with each record containing 220 bytes of data, a temporary
table of all the rows would take up 33+ gigs. If, by chance, such an
update creates a temporary table with the full 175 million rows, what
happens if the partition tempdb.mdf resides on is only 28 gig in size,
etc?

I hope that made some sense, and thanks.

Warren Wright
Dallas

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!"Warren Wright" <warren.wright@.us.scorex.com> wrote in message
news:407aeb41$0$203$75868355@.news.frii.net...
> Hi All,
> First, where can I get some questions of this sort answered?
> Preferably, are there good books or online guides that I can consult for
> these types of answers when necessary?
> 1. How do I know, when executing a query from Query Analyzer or
> otherwise, how many temporary tables will be needed, and how big they
> will be?
> 2. Where will those temporary tables be created? Always in tempdb?
> 3. If part of the estimated execution plan in Query Analyzer involves a
> "Hash Match/Inner Join" with an estimated row count of 5 million, how
> many tables will be created along the way?
> 4. What happens if tempdb doesn't have enough space to create a
> temporary table in its entirety?
> 5. etc.
> Those are just examples. I guess what I need is a good book on
> query/script optimization, including selects, deletes, updates, etc,
> that I can reference that will describe to me what is going on
> internally when certain execution plans are executed.
> Not only how to write optimized queries (use SARGs, etc), but why to
> write a query one way over another.
> Second, my current question regards an UPDATE I'm trying to get to run
> in a reasonable amount of time.
> It has to update 11 million rows of a 175 million row table. I did the
> math, and with each record containing 220 bytes of data, a temporary
> table of all the rows would take up 33+ gigs. If, by chance, such an
> update creates a temporary table with the full 175 million rows, what
> happens if the partition tempdb.mdf resides on is only 28 gig in size,
> etc?
> I hope that made some sense, and thanks.
> Warren Wright
> Dallas
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

I assume from your description above that you're talking about working
tables used internally by MSSQL, and not temp tables created by users and
applications? I don't have any detailed answers, since this isn't documented
anywhere that I know of, with the exception of the space required in tempdb
for creating indexes - see "tempdb and Index Creation" in Books Online. The
best description of MSSQL internals is "Inside SQL Server 2000" by Kalen
Delaney - it may well have more information, but I don't have my copy to
hand, so I can't check.

If MSSQL needs to use disk space, it's usually in tempdb (unless you're
creating indexes - see the BOL section above), and if there isn't enough
space then tempdb will grow according to its autogrowth settings. If you run
out of disk space, you'll get the usual errors raised when this happens
(1105, from memory, but I may be wrong).

In your situation, if you have a large transaction and limited disk space,
then one possible solution is to execute the UPDATE in batches, and truncate
the log periodically as you do it. This is only possible if you don't need
to do your UPDATE inside a transaction, of course.

Simon|||"Warren Wright" <warren.wright@.us.scorex.com> wrote in message
news:407aeb41$0$203$75868355@.news.frii.net...
> Hi All,
> First, where can I get some questions of this sort answered?
> Preferably, are there good books or online guides that I can consult for
> these types of answers when necessary?
> 1. How do I know, when executing a query from Query Analyzer or
> otherwise, how many temporary tables will be needed, and how big they
> will be?
> 2. Where will those temporary tables be created? Always in tempdb?
> 3. If part of the estimated execution plan in Query Analyzer involves a
> "Hash Match/Inner Join" with an estimated row count of 5 million, how
> many tables will be created along the way?
> 4. What happens if tempdb doesn't have enough space to create a
> temporary table in its entirety?
> 5. etc.
> Those are just examples. I guess what I need is a good book on
> query/script optimization, including selects, deletes, updates, etc,
> that I can reference that will describe to me what is going on
> internally when certain execution plans are executed.
> Not only how to write optimized queries (use SARGs, etc), but why to
> write a query one way over another.
> Second, my current question regards an UPDATE I'm trying to get to run
> in a reasonable amount of time.
> It has to update 11 million rows of a 175 million row table. I did the
> math, and with each record containing 220 bytes of data, a temporary
> table of all the rows would take up 33+ gigs. If, by chance, such an
> update creates a temporary table with the full 175 million rows, what
> happens if the partition tempdb.mdf resides on is only 28 gig in size,
> etc?
> I hope that made some sense, and thanks.
> Warren Wright
> Dallas
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

I assume from your description above that you're talking about working
tables used internally by MSSQL, and not temp tables created by users and
applications? I don't have any detailed answers, since this isn't documented
anywhere that I know of, with the exception of the space required in tempdb
for creating indexes - see "tempdb and Index Creation" in Books Online. The
best description of MSSQL internals is "Inside SQL Server 2000" by Kalen
Delaney - it may well have more information, but I don't have my copy to
hand, so I can't check.

If MSSQL needs to use disk space, it's usually in tempdb (unless you're
creating indexes - see the BOL section above), and if there isn't enough
space then tempdb will grow according to its autogrowth settings. If you run
out of disk space, you'll get the usual errors raised when this happens
(1105, from memory, but I may be wrong).

In your situation, if you have a large transaction and limited disk space,
then one possible solution is to execute the UPDATE in batches, and truncate
the log periodically as you do it. This is only possible if you don't need
to do your UPDATE inside a transaction, of course.

Simon

Is SSRS 2000 compatible with any version of VS 2005?

I am awaiting my free VS 2005 Standard that I'm supposed to get for
viewing online videos on an MS website, and I am curious if SSRS for
SQL Server 2000 can be used with VS 2005'
Thank you, TomI forgot to search the list before I asked, I apologize...
It seems that RS 2005 is compatible with SQL Server 2000, and that RS
2005 will work with VS 2005, but is RS 2005 even available as a
separate download/install for SQL Server 2000'
I looked on the MSSQL downloads page and did not see it...unless it is
not a separate download...I don't expect my agency to be interested in
SS 2005 for quite a while.
Thank you, Tom|||RS 2005 is part of SQL Server 2005. You cannot get it separate. Any box
running RS 2005 must have a SQL Server 2005 license.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"tlyczko" <tlyczko@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148307676.169124.284530@.38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I forgot to search the list before I asked, I apologize...
> It seems that RS 2005 is compatible with SQL Server 2000, and that RS
> 2005 will work with VS 2005, but is RS 2005 even available as a
> separate download/install for SQL Server 2000'
> I looked on the MSSQL downloads page and did not see it...unless it is
> not a separate download...I don't expect my agency to be interested in
> SS 2005 for quite a while.
> Thank you, Tom
>|||Sorry to hijack this. I have RS2000 running on my dev machine and would
like to be able to run RS2005 side by side with this. Is this possible?
I cannot uninstall 2000 as it used for dev of production reports and I
could not make any changes if I needed to?
TIA
Bruce L-C [MVP] wrote:
> RS 2005 is part of SQL Server 2005. You cannot get it separate. Any box
> running RS 2005 must have a SQL Server 2005 license.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "tlyczko" <tlyczko@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148307676.169124.284530@.38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >I forgot to search the list before I asked, I apologize...
> >
> > It seems that RS 2005 is compatible with SQL Server 2000, and that RS
> > 2005 will work with VS 2005, but is RS 2005 even available as a
> > separate download/install for SQL Server 2000'
> >
> > I looked on the MSSQL downloads page and did not see it...unless it is
> > not a separate download...I don't expect my agency to be interested in
> > SS 2005 for quite a while.
> >
> > Thank you, Tom
> >|||Both Report Designers can be installed side by side. RS 2005 comes with its
own version of VS 2005 so you do not need to purchase VS 2005 to run the
designer. However, if you want to create custom assemblies then you would
need to purchase VS 2005.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"theaddict" <theaddict@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148316677.949788.85080@.y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry to hijack this. I have RS2000 running on my dev machine and would
> like to be able to run RS2005 side by side with this. Is this possible?
> I cannot uninstall 2000 as it used for dev of production reports and I
> could not make any changes if I needed to?
> TIA
> Bruce L-C [MVP] wrote:
>> RS 2005 is part of SQL Server 2005. You cannot get it separate. Any box
>> running RS 2005 must have a SQL Server 2005 license.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "tlyczko" <tlyczko@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1148307676.169124.284530@.38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >I forgot to search the list before I asked, I apologize...
>> >
>> > It seems that RS 2005 is compatible with SQL Server 2000, and that RS
>> > 2005 will work with VS 2005, but is RS 2005 even available as a
>> > separate download/install for SQL Server 2000'
>> >
>> > I looked on the MSSQL downloads page and did not see it...unless it is
>> > not a separate download...I don't expect my agency to be interested in
>> > SS 2005 for quite a while.
>> >
>> > Thank you, Tom
>> >
>|||What about publishing and running srs2000 .rdl files to sql server 2005? Is
this possible?
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> Both Report Designers can be installed side by side. RS 2005 comes with its
> own version of VS 2005 so you do not need to purchase VS 2005 to run the
> designer. However, if you want to create custom assemblies then you would
> need to purchase VS 2005.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "theaddict" <theaddict@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148316677.949788.85080@.y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Sorry to hijack this. I have RS2000 running on my dev machine and would
> > like to be able to run RS2005 side by side with this. Is this possible?
> > I cannot uninstall 2000 as it used for dev of production reports and I
> > could not make any changes if I needed to?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Bruce L-C [MVP] wrote:
> >> RS 2005 is part of SQL Server 2005. You cannot get it separate. Any box
> >> running RS 2005 must have a SQL Server 2005 license.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> >> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> >>
> >> "tlyczko" <tlyczko@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1148307676.169124.284530@.38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >I forgot to search the list before I asked, I apologize...
> >> >
> >> > It seems that RS 2005 is compatible with SQL Server 2000, and that RS
> >> > 2005 will work with VS 2005, but is RS 2005 even available as a
> >> > separate download/install for SQL Server 2000'
> >> >
> >> > I looked on the MSSQL downloads page and did not see it...unless it is
> >> > not a separate download...I don't expect my agency to be interested in
> >> > SS 2005 for quite a while.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you, Tom
> >> >
> >
>
>

Is replication without network connection but file-based possible?

Hello,

I've been looking around in several SQL-Forums and in SQL Books Online but haven't found clear suggestions how to tackle my problem:

Our company has to fill a database with documentation for our contractor. Our subcontractors have to supply information from their branch/craft into this database, too.

Replication (without determining a type at this time) would do fine for data-exchange between us and our subcontractors.

But for working in different companies the networks are not connected
and in some companies/departments connection to the Internet is prohibited at all.
This would result in data-exchange based on files - which wont be a problem as data needs to be updated/exchanged only once a week and is usually done at meetings using DVD-Rs.

scenario in short:
- two-way exchange of data between SQL servers being not connected
- update needed once a week
- our server: SQL Server 2005 Standard (preferred)
- servers of our subcontractors: SQL Server Express 2005 (preferred)

That's the point where I dont know how to proceed:
Is two-way replication based on files possible at all?

I read about Snapshots, but to my understanding this replaces the "whole database" without caring about changes made to it and that's why it wont work for two-way exchange.

I would appreciate your hints how to solve this problem in general or whether I should look out for other solutions - MS Access might work with restrictions - but I would prefer SQL Server.

Thanks for reading until here and in advance for your answers.

Regards,

Michael__H

Hi Michael.

I do not think there is an easy solution for your problem. There is no offline file based replication solution that will also do 2-way replication for you.

The closest you can get by is backup restore but that will overwrite your data on the other side.

However if you have even Internet connection, then you will be able to solve your problem by using Web Synchronization which is a new feature in SQL Server Merge replication for SQL Server 2005.

|||

Hello Mahesh,

thank you for your answer.

According to your reply I'm going to solve my problem by using stored procedures writing my own little "replication":

- select records to be altered by our subcontractors
- mark them in separate column as 'currently exported'
- copy to external database/file X
- let our subcontractors complete missing data in database/file X
- compare returned database/file X with records in database marked as 'currently exported'
- import changed records

Of course it won't be easy but as far as no other solution is possible...

Michael

|||

Michael,

Your solution will work but it could be tricky.

Again I encourage you to take a look at Web Synchronization if you remotely think that the subscribers could have atleast internet connection.

|||

Hello Mahesh,

I'll have a closer look at Web-Synchronization , it seems to be a solution. And if not, my "replication" will be used.

Your suggestion has given my a direction for further reading, thank you.

Michael

Is replication without network connection but file-based possible?

Hello,

I've been looking around in several SQL-Forums and in SQL Books Online but haven't found clear suggestions how to tackle my problem:

Our company has to fill a database with documentation for our contractor. Our subcontractors have to supply information from their branch/craft into this database, too.

Replication (without determining a type at this time) would do fine for data-exchange between us and our subcontractors.

But for working in different companies the networks are not connected
and in some companies/departments connection to the Internet is prohibited at all.
This would result in data-exchange based on files - which wont be a problem as data needs to be updated/exchanged only once a week and is usually done at meetings using DVD-Rs.

scenario in short:
- two-way exchange of data between SQL servers being not connected
- update needed once a week
- our server: SQL Server 2005 Standard (preferred)
- servers of our subcontractors: SQL Server Express 2005 (preferred)

That's the point where I dont know how to proceed:
Is two-way replication based on files possible at all?

I read about Snapshots, but to my understanding this replaces the "whole database" without caring about changes made to it and that's why it wont work for two-way exchange.

I would appreciate your hints how to solve this problem in general or whether I should look out for other solutions - MS Access might work with restrictions - but I would prefer SQL Server.

Thanks for reading until here and in advance for your answers.

Regards,

Michael__H

Hi Michael.

I do not think there is an easy solution for your problem. There is no offline file based replication solution that will also do 2-way replication for you.

The closest you can get by is backup restore but that will overwrite your data on the other side.

However if you have even Internet connection, then you will be able to solve your problem by using Web Synchronization which is a new feature in SQL Server Merge replication for SQL Server 2005.

|||

Hello Mahesh,

thank you for your answer.

According to your reply I'm going to solve my problem by using stored procedures writing my own little "replication":

- select records to be altered by our subcontractors
- mark them in separate column as 'currently exported'
- copy to external database/file X
- let our subcontractors complete missing data in database/file X
- compare returned database/file X with records in database marked as 'currently exported'
- import changed records

Of course it won't be easy but as far as no other solution is possible...

Michael

|||

Michael,

Your solution will work but it could be tricky.

Again I encourage you to take a look at Web Synchronization if you remotely think that the subscribers could have atleast internet connection.

|||

Hello Mahesh,

I'll have a closer look at Web-Synchronization , it seems to be a solution. And if not, my "replication" will be used.

Your suggestion has given my a direction for further reading, thank you.

Michael

Is My Backup Plan Safe?

I need to setup an online backup mechanism which allows restoration of data
up to point of failure in the event of DB file corruption or hard disk drive
failure. The current DB size is ~ 100M with a growth rate of ~15M/month for
the last 6 months. I'm thinking of :
1. Create a scheduled daily full backup from c drive to d drive
2. Create a scheduled hourly transaction log backup from c drive to d drive
3. Create a scheduled weekly full backup of backup folder in d drive to tape
drive with Windows backup utility.
4. Create scheduled daily differential backup of backup folder in d drive to
tape drive with Windows backup utility.
5. Two tapes will be rotated every alternate week for backup to tapes. Tape
not in used will be taken off-site.
Is the above plan good enough for the recovery scenario I want to address?Ong
Yep it looks pretty good. But remember that everything you did so far has
no value if you cannot restore the database. Verify that backups are not
corrupted and you can easily restore the database
"Ong" <Ong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:68837F91-E41F-4487-B673-9316EE9D9037@.microsoft.com...
>I need to setup an online backup mechanism which allows restoration of data
> up to point of failure in the event of DB file corruption or hard disk
> drive
> failure. The current DB size is ~ 100M with a growth rate of ~15M/month
> for
> the last 6 months. I'm thinking of :
> 1. Create a scheduled daily full backup from c drive to d drive
> 2. Create a scheduled hourly transaction log backup from c drive to d
> drive
> 3. Create a scheduled weekly full backup of backup folder in d drive to
> tape
> drive with Windows backup utility.
> 4. Create scheduled daily differential backup of backup folder in d drive
> to
> tape drive with Windows backup utility.
> 5. Two tapes will be rotated every alternate week for backup to tapes.
> Tape
> not in used will be taken off-site.
> Is the above plan good enough for the recovery scenario I want to address?|||Thank you for your comment & precaution on backup verification.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ong
> Yep it looks pretty good. But remember that everything you did so far has
> no value if you cannot restore the database. Verify that backups are not
> corrupted and you can easily restore the database
> "Ong" <Ong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:68837F91-E41F-4487-B673-9316EE9D9037@.microsoft.com...
> >I need to setup an online backup mechanism which allows restoration of data
> > up to point of failure in the event of DB file corruption or hard disk
> > drive
> > failure. The current DB size is ~ 100M with a growth rate of ~15M/month
> > for
> > the last 6 months. I'm thinking of :
> > 1. Create a scheduled daily full backup from c drive to d drive
> > 2. Create a scheduled hourly transaction log backup from c drive to d
> > drive
> > 3. Create a scheduled weekly full backup of backup folder in d drive to
> > tape
> > drive with Windows backup utility.
> > 4. Create scheduled daily differential backup of backup folder in d drive
> > to
> > tape drive with Windows backup utility.
> > 5. Two tapes will be rotated every alternate week for backup to tapes.
> > Tape
> > not in used will be taken off-site.
> >
> > Is the above plan good enough for the recovery scenario I want to address?
>
>|||Is the C and D drive the same physical drive? Then you could lose you
database drive and your backup drive.
If C and D are separate physical drives are they on the same disk
controller? If the controller fails then you won't be able to access your
database and backups until you replace the controller or put the drive in
another box..
Imagine your server and tape drive are stolen. It sounds like you would have
to go to tape and possibly lose a week of transactions.
I would backup across the network or directly to the tape drive or get a
separate external hard drive. If your only moving data offsite once a week
get a fireproof safe.
I don't think your backup plan is safe and I don't believe you will be able
to restore to the point of failure if say your building burns down.
"Ong" <Ong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:68837F91-E41F-4487-B673-9316EE9D9037@.microsoft.com...
> I need to setup an online backup mechanism which allows restoration of
data
> up to point of failure in the event of DB file corruption or hard disk
drive
> failure. The current DB size is ~ 100M with a growth rate of ~15M/month
for
> the last 6 months. I'm thinking of :
> 1. Create a scheduled daily full backup from c drive to d drive
> 2. Create a scheduled hourly transaction log backup from c drive to d
drive
> 3. Create a scheduled weekly full backup of backup folder in d drive to
tape
> drive with Windows backup utility.
> 4. Create scheduled daily differential backup of backup folder in d drive
to
> tape drive with Windows backup utility.
> 5. Two tapes will be rotated every alternate week for backup to tapes.
Tape
> not in used will be taken off-site.
> Is the above plan good enough for the recovery scenario I want to address?|||Terri ,
Thanks for your important input.
I didn't check this thread for a few days & only saw your reply today.
I hope you can clarify my questions below:
"Terri" wrote:
> Is the C and D drive the same physical drive? Then you could lose you
> database drive and your backup drive.
> If C and D are separate physical drives are they on the same disk
> controller? If the controller fails then you won't be able to access your
> database and backups until you replace the controller or put the drive in
> another box..
FYI, D is an external usb drive
> Imagine your server and tape drive are stolen. It sounds like you would have
> to go to tape and possibly lose a week of transactions.
> I would backup across the network or directly to the tape drive or get a
> separate external hard drive.
Will backup across the network be slow and cause network jam?
>If your only moving data offsite once a week
> get a fireproof safe.
Do you mean to put the tape in a fireproof safe in the office or offsite?
> I don't think your backup plan is safe and I don't believe you will be able
> to restore to the point of failure if say your building burns down.
Sounds like for solution with tape, the only safe way is to use 7 (or 5
excluding weekends) backup tapes to do full db backup daily and transaction
logs backup hourly and keep all the unused tapes offsite.