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.