Anyone done Azure / Sql Server development?
-
I have global operations to manage but we currently have Sql Server in just one city. For some of our Asia / Pacific users, connectivity issues, bandwidth, etc. are causing performance problems. I'm wondering if moving our Sql Server database to Azure (if in fact I'm viewing this service correctly) would be beneficial, as I would assume MS has servers across the world so that people in different regions wouldn't necessarily have to reach all the way over to a city in the U.S. to fetch data. So, my question is twofold. 1. Am I thinking about Azure correctly, i.e. can it be "Sql Server in the cloud?" 2. What's the nightmare factor when working with Azure? Good stuff, or stay away?
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers (2nd ed, just released) Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living With Your Creativity (Due Nov 2013) The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World
-
I have global operations to manage but we currently have Sql Server in just one city. For some of our Asia / Pacific users, connectivity issues, bandwidth, etc. are causing performance problems. I'm wondering if moving our Sql Server database to Azure (if in fact I'm viewing this service correctly) would be beneficial, as I would assume MS has servers across the world so that people in different regions wouldn't necessarily have to reach all the way over to a city in the U.S. to fetch data. So, my question is twofold. 1. Am I thinking about Azure correctly, i.e. can it be "Sql Server in the cloud?" 2. What's the nightmare factor when working with Azure? Good stuff, or stay away?
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers (2nd ed, just released) Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living With Your Creativity (Due Nov 2013) The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World
Yes - Azure can be used as SQL Server in the Cloud. There are datacenters on many continents, and Azure can be set up for high availability and redundancy, spinning up more servers on demand, geographic routing, etc. For a few years now I've been calling it the greatest thing that nobody seems to know about. The nightmare factor when working with Azure is the opportunity for spiraling cost - operating costs that could accumulate much faster than your revenue stream. You can do a lot with Azure, but the more complex your implementation, the more cost you'll incur. SQL Azure data costs more than no-SQL Azure data, for example. Adding queues for better performance will add to costs. It's better now than it used to be because you can set limits on your cost now, but these costs sometimes encourage solution architects to design non-optimal solutions as a tradeoff to data costs. In general, you'll need someone familiar with Azure to help get you started because it's not just clicking a button to populate a SQL Server solution to the cloud. Azure isn't just SQL Server, it's much more than that, and it can be very confusing to a newcomer. It doesn't eliminate your IT staff, but it can eliminate mundane hardware acquisition, software installs, and upgrades because Microsoft does them for you. Azure is Microsoft's future and they're putting a lot into it and it's very competitive. Definitely worth a look.
-
Yes - Azure can be used as SQL Server in the Cloud. There are datacenters on many continents, and Azure can be set up for high availability and redundancy, spinning up more servers on demand, geographic routing, etc. For a few years now I've been calling it the greatest thing that nobody seems to know about. The nightmare factor when working with Azure is the opportunity for spiraling cost - operating costs that could accumulate much faster than your revenue stream. You can do a lot with Azure, but the more complex your implementation, the more cost you'll incur. SQL Azure data costs more than no-SQL Azure data, for example. Adding queues for better performance will add to costs. It's better now than it used to be because you can set limits on your cost now, but these costs sometimes encourage solution architects to design non-optimal solutions as a tradeoff to data costs. In general, you'll need someone familiar with Azure to help get you started because it's not just clicking a button to populate a SQL Server solution to the cloud. Azure isn't just SQL Server, it's much more than that, and it can be very confusing to a newcomer. It doesn't eliminate your IT staff, but it can eliminate mundane hardware acquisition, software installs, and upgrades because Microsoft does them for you. Azure is Microsoft's future and they're putting a lot into it and it's very competitive. Definitely worth a look.
Thanks, man. Appreciate the in depth insights. The main thing I'm trying to understand is this - if I want our ASPAC customers to hit a database close to them, a different one for Europe and a third one for the states, do they provide some kind of magic for this, or do I end up with three sql server databases installed and having to keep them in sync via replication, etc? If it's the latter scenario, the CIO may well keep it in house and just put servers in those regions. If I can get some distributed magic as part of the plan and the cost isn't excessive, it would eliminate the need for him to do that.
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers (2nd ed, just released) Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living With Your Creativity (Due Nov 2013) The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World
-
Thanks, man. Appreciate the in depth insights. The main thing I'm trying to understand is this - if I want our ASPAC customers to hit a database close to them, a different one for Europe and a third one for the states, do they provide some kind of magic for this, or do I end up with three sql server databases installed and having to keep them in sync via replication, etc? If it's the latter scenario, the CIO may well keep it in house and just put servers in those regions. If I can get some distributed magic as part of the plan and the cost isn't excessive, it would eliminate the need for him to do that.
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers (2nd ed, just released) Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living With Your Creativity (Due Nov 2013) The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World
There are multiple datacenters in the USA and Europe. There is automatic geo-replication among datacenters that are hundreds of miles apart in case a datacenter has a catastrophic failure. There is also data sync via CDN and now via Azure SQL Data-Sync which can sync data between a SQL Server and Windows Azure SQL Database. http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/manage/services/sql-databases/getting-started-w-sql-data-sync/[^] You can also reduce latency and data costs for users who are far from your datacenter by using CDN - which adds its own costs. http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/net/common-tasks/cdn/[^]
-
I have global operations to manage but we currently have Sql Server in just one city. For some of our Asia / Pacific users, connectivity issues, bandwidth, etc. are causing performance problems. I'm wondering if moving our Sql Server database to Azure (if in fact I'm viewing this service correctly) would be beneficial, as I would assume MS has servers across the world so that people in different regions wouldn't necessarily have to reach all the way over to a city in the U.S. to fetch data. So, my question is twofold. 1. Am I thinking about Azure correctly, i.e. can it be "Sql Server in the cloud?" 2. What's the nightmare factor when working with Azure? Good stuff, or stay away?
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers (2nd ed, just released) Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living With Your Creativity (Due Nov 2013) The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World
Replicated Databases is a very costly option. I would use multiple databases as a very last option. You could always beef-up the database server, plan your indexes, implement indexed views for repeating queries, improve the queries and stored procedures, implement caching in your application or improve performance of the application itself. And if you have done all of the above and it is still not solving the problem, then I would suggest you to implement some custom caching services, using Redis[^] or MongoDB[^]. Windows Azure offers geo-redundant storage locations, you could use these NoSQL files to act as an intermediate database. It will give you more flexibility and control. And if you want to implement replication or mirroring in Windows Azure. There are two options because Windows Azure offers two types of SQL Server solutions. SQL Azure (PaaS) and SQL Server inside a VM (IaaS). SQL Azure means zero administration and maintenance at the cost of control and flexibility (We are using this as Production database). And traditional SQL Server inside a Virtual Machine means more control, better performance and complete administration (We are using this as Development database). There are 6 locations available for Azure that you may use. To sync multiple database using SQL Azure you can use Data-Sync service. This is out-of-the-box solution and you could setup multiple synced databases in just few clicks/minutes. but the biggest problem with this option is the minimum sync time is 5 min. so you will have 5 min delay between the sync and this can cause huge problems. Which left you with the last option, to do everything by yourself, by setting up multiple Azure VMs in different regions, and then install and configure database mirroring/replication, and setup network load balancer (in Azure this is easy to do). You will also have to change your Application to use 'correct' connection string. I have done this headache in my previous job (with on-premise servers) and it's costly and time consuming, and your DBA will hate you for rest of his life :-D . I still prefer to setup Web Application at multiple locations, load balance them, use single but powerful server for Database, and implement some intelligent caching service using NoSQL database. :)
-
There are multiple datacenters in the USA and Europe. There is automatic geo-replication among datacenters that are hundreds of miles apart in case a datacenter has a catastrophic failure. There is also data sync via CDN and now via Azure SQL Data-Sync which can sync data between a SQL Server and Windows Azure SQL Database. http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/manage/services/sql-databases/getting-started-w-sql-data-sync/[^] You can also reduce latency and data costs for users who are far from your datacenter by using CDN - which adds its own costs. http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/net/common-tasks/cdn/[^]
Thanks, man. Very much appreciate you sharing your perspective.
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers (2nd ed, just released) Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living With Your Creativity (Due Nov 2013) The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World
-
Replicated Databases is a very costly option. I would use multiple databases as a very last option. You could always beef-up the database server, plan your indexes, implement indexed views for repeating queries, improve the queries and stored procedures, implement caching in your application or improve performance of the application itself. And if you have done all of the above and it is still not solving the problem, then I would suggest you to implement some custom caching services, using Redis[^] or MongoDB[^]. Windows Azure offers geo-redundant storage locations, you could use these NoSQL files to act as an intermediate database. It will give you more flexibility and control. And if you want to implement replication or mirroring in Windows Azure. There are two options because Windows Azure offers two types of SQL Server solutions. SQL Azure (PaaS) and SQL Server inside a VM (IaaS). SQL Azure means zero administration and maintenance at the cost of control and flexibility (We are using this as Production database). And traditional SQL Server inside a Virtual Machine means more control, better performance and complete administration (We are using this as Development database). There are 6 locations available for Azure that you may use. To sync multiple database using SQL Azure you can use Data-Sync service. This is out-of-the-box solution and you could setup multiple synced databases in just few clicks/minutes. but the biggest problem with this option is the minimum sync time is 5 min. so you will have 5 min delay between the sync and this can cause huge problems. Which left you with the last option, to do everything by yourself, by setting up multiple Azure VMs in different regions, and then install and configure database mirroring/replication, and setup network load balancer (in Azure this is easy to do). You will also have to change your Application to use 'correct' connection string. I have done this headache in my previous job (with on-premise servers) and it's costly and time consuming, and your DBA will hate you for rest of his life :-D . I still prefer to setup Web Application at multiple locations, load balance them, use single but powerful server for Database, and implement some intelligent caching service using NoSQL database. :)
Multiple web apps and a bit of intellegence certainly sounds better than incurring the wrath of the DBAs. :)
Christopher Duncan Author of Unite the Tribes: Leadership Skills for Technology Managers (2nd ed, just released) Have Fun, Get Paid: How to Make a Living With Your Creativity (Due Nov 2013) The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World