We are having a SQL 2016 Standard Edition Server holding 4TB of data. And the compressed backup using maintenance plans is taking around 1.5 hrs. Our storage team claims that as PURE FlashArray is used, SQL compression is not required as PURE compresses the backup. PURE documentation here – https://support.purestorage.com/Solutions/Microsoft_Platform_Guide/Microsoft_SQL_Server/001_Microsoft_SQL_Server_Quick_Reference – talks about uncompressed backups and de-dupe. Brent's article about de-dupe – https://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/11/why-dedupe-is-a-bad-idea-for-sql-server-backups/.
What is the best practice SQL compression or Uncompressed backups on PURE. How do i measure it, as the stats are more powerful than statements.
Best Answer
There is not really a recommended choice for compressed versus uncompressed when the storage subsystem has compression/de-dupe features as there are too many variables, generally though I always enable compression even with storage subsystem compression.
You need to determine which is best for your particular environment and implement that. There are several areas you can check for comparison to validate which is the best choice.
The below query will get statistics from your backup history to help you collate the data from a SQL Server perspective, and you need to get your storage team to extract their own statistics to show size, compression, throughput etc for comparison.
You should also run these tests on a non-Production SQL Server where you can change your configurations without impacting production.
Script: