SQL Stability Challenges and Solutions.

With my limited SQL background, I'm seeking insights into an intricate issue that unfolded with our meticulously built SQL 2016 server. Our setup, constructed with utmost care, adhered strictly to Microsoft's best practices and recommendations from renowned entities like PURE (iSCSI), Litespeed, and Brent Ozar. Notably, even a third-party SQL specialist's review affirmed the soundness of our approach.

However, our experience was marred by a series of vexing challenges related to Litespeed. These included failed log shipping, recurring troubles with locked or corrupted backup files, and SQL crashes attributed to a Litespeed dll triggering memory violations, purportedly addressed in SQL CU7 and subsequent updates.

Strangely, these issues were absent in earlier iterations of Litespeed on older SQL versions. Despite our efforts to seek resolutions from Litespeed, the problems persisted, compelling us to eliminate all remnants of the software. Since transitioning to native backup solutions, our system has maintained stability, albeit at the cost of prolonged backup and restore durations. Even with attempts to mitigate this via multiple file usage, the problem persists.

As we evaluate backup tools on a test server, the critical question looms: how can I reassure both myself and my superiors about the server's stability? I'm particularly concerned about litespeed.exe's tendency to lock backup files indefinitely, hindering completion. Consequently, the dilemma remains between embracing a third-party tool, with lingering apprehensions from past experiences, or persisting with native procedures despite their sluggishness.

It's worth mentioning our disappointment with Litespeed's support, as their inability to resolve any of our issues persisted, often shifting the blame to Microsoft, who in turn redirected it to Litespeed. Since eliminating Litespeed, our predicaments have dissipated, leaving us in a state of uncertainty koowspin moving echatrandom forward.

  • Hello 

    Thank you for using our forums, your feedback is well received.

    Generally speaking, issues matching the aforementioned description were introduced after a Microsoft update and thus resolved by Microsoft on a future CU.

    Moreover, please note these issues were observed on older SQL versions such as 2016 and most of our users mitigated them with a SQL Server version upgrade.

    Further, kindly recall that LiteSpeed, as a third-party tool, depends on the technology SQL Server offers and thus in some respects depends on Microsoft for specific solutions such as in the case in question.


    It is unfortunate that you feel the support experience was not optimal for your scenario. If you would allow us the chance to improve your views of our support system, as a LiteSpeed product specialist I will make the exception to take care of you directly and assure to follow-up your cases until resolution, including possible collaboration calls with you and Microsoft.



    Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

  • I understand the dilemma you're facing in choosing between a third-party backup tool like LiteSpeed and native backup solutions. While native backups offer stability, they can be time-consuming. On the other hand, LiteSpeed has the potential to provide faster backups but has a history of causing issues in your environment.

    To make an informed decision, consider the following factors:

    Stability and Reliability: Prioritize tools that have a proven track record of stability and reliability in your specific environment. While LiteSpeed has had issues in the past, it may have improved over time. Consider testing it thoroughly on your test server to assess its current performance.

    Performance and Scalability: Evaluate the backup and restore speeds of both native and third-party tools. If performance is crucial, consider tools that can handle your current and future data growth.

    Features and Ease of Use: Assess the features offered by each tool, such as compression, encryption, scheduling, and monitoring capabilities. Choose a tool that aligns with your needs and is easy to use for both administrators and end users.

    Support and Community: Evaluate the level of support offered by each vendor. Check for online resources, documentation, and community forums to find troubleshooting tips and solutions to common problems.

    Cost: Consider the overall cost of each option, including licensing fees, maintenance costs, and potential downtime caused by stability issues.

    To address the specific concerns you mentioned:

    Litespeed Locking Backup Files: This issue may have been resolved in newer versions of LiteSpeed. Thoroughly test the latest version on your test server to see if the problem persists.

    Prolonged Native Backup Durations: Investigate methods to optimize native backups, such as using multiple file splits, compression, and reducing log file growth. Consider using a dedicated backup server to offload the backup process from your production server.

    Reassurance for Superiors: Document your testing process, including the pros and cons of each option. Communicate your findings and recommendations clearly to your superiors, highlighting the potential risks and benefits of each approach.

    Remember, the best choice depends on your specific requirements, environment, and risk tolerance. Carefully evaluate your options and prioritize stability, performance, features, ease of use, support, and cost to make an informed decision that aligns with your organization's needs.