I am planning to use Azure SQL Database Managed Instance, but not sure if using VPN will be charged or not. Microsoft Doc's on this are quite confusing and doesn't clearly mention about VPN pricing.
You have to pay for any bandwidth consumption related to data going out of Microsoft Azure Data Centers. You can get more information about it here.
If you are looking for pricing of VPN Gateway and Express Route Gateway you can visit this Microsoft page.
Related
I followed the documentation for connecting azure purview account with synapse.
I do not see option - Manage -> Azure Purview in Synapse Workspace.
UPDATE: Azure Purview Integration is now available in Azure Synapse Studio.
On January 8th, 2021
The integration between Azure Synapse Analytics and Azure Purview is currently under Preview. If you are interested to try Azure Purview in Synapse, please connect with your Microsoft Sales Representative.
To get access to this feature you need to reach out to your sales representative at Microsoft.
In case, if you do not have a sales representative at Microsoft. I would suggest you file a support ticket and with a strong business use case.
Once you have created a support ticket, I would request you to share the support request number so that I can route it to the Azure Synapse team to enable access to the Azure Purview.
Hello as mentioned Pradeep, the integration feature is under gated preview but will be public very soon (end of January). In the meantime, if you still want to connect, please connect through my LinkedIn profile (Arnaud Comet).
Thank you,
Arnaud
I installed SSRS into an Azure VM (IaaS). In the ssrs configuration manager, I tried the report server databases point to an Azure SQL Managed Instance database, but the connection didn't work. I would like to know if SSRS in an Azure VM support Report Server Databases as Azure SQL Database and/or Azure SQL MAnaged Instance. If it is supported, can you please share any documentation about that?
Thanks!
To my knowledge Report Server databases cannot be hosted on Azure SQL Database as I mentioned on this MSDN forum thread.
As long as I know, the Report Server database can be hosted on a Managed Instance and is mentioned by a Microsoft Data Platform MVP on this article. You won't find any official documentation on how to do this. This scenario makes little sense to me, because you will be paying money for a SQL VM and a Managed Instance. You will be paying SQL licenses for both. You save money if you have SSRS and its databases on the VM,
Currently I am hosting my online application on an Azure VM. This is a pretty standard Umbraco website with around 300 visitors per day, nothing special here.
Details of Azure VM:
- Basic A3
- 4 cores
- 7 GB Memory
In the current situation MsSQL is installed on the VM itself and this is working fine, but I am not a great expert in maintenance. A solution I found is migrating the SQL database to SQL Azure.
Looking at my current website I decided to do this and I migrated the database to SQL Azure:
- S3 Standard
- 100 DTU
- 250GB
After the migration I switched the connection string with the connection string that was provided in the Azure portal. When I reloaded my website the loading time was suddenly three times slower.
For now I switched it back to the local SQL Database, but I am wondering if it is a normal situation that the local SQL is faster then SQL Azure in this case.
I hope someone can answer my question, please let me know if more information is required to answer my question.
Best regards, Martijn
EDIT
The issue is resolved! I found out that the SQL Azure Server that I created was located in a different region then the Azure VM. After I created a new SQL Azure server in the same region the performance issues where fixed.
Good to hear your perf issues are fixed. In general, comparing the performance of a local database versus a PaaS database is not always an apples-to-apples comparison for a number of reasons:
Azure SQL Database is a highly available service (99.99%) that requires synchronous commits to a secondary database. A local database typically is not configured for high availability.
Azure SQL Database provides automatic backup. Depending on your setup, a local database might may or may not be configured for backup.
The affect of network latency on a local database does not exist
The memory and CPU between of a S3 Azure SQL Database and a A3 VM are likely not the same
I want to use a database between two sides of a software product consisting of two separate applications:
User side (Mobile) ---> Database <--- Admin side (Web application)
Questions:
Can Azure Cloud Services solve this problem or does a better solution exist?
Does Azure Cloud Services provide an SQL database in the cloud?
1) Yes, https://azure.microsoft.com/en-in/services/sql-database/
2)Connect two or more applications to the same database using Hibernate
this might help
3)https://azure.microsoft.com/en-in/documentation/articles/data-management-azure-sql-database-and-sql-server-iaas/
I am using Azure VM role. I created a separate VHD (uploaded to page blob) for storing SQL data files (to overcome data persistence issue with VM role). The SharePoint 2010 has been configured on VM. I want to run 2 instances of Azure VM, where I am faining as mounting the data VHD in write mode on 2 instances is not possible. Can anyone help me out in this?
To add to what Joannes said:
A Cloud Drive may be mounted by exactly one writer, but you can make any number of read-only snapshots. This won't help with a scale-out scenario that you're describing, but I just wanted to clarify.
SharePoint 2010 is not a supported configuration in a VM Role currently. There's licensing, compatibility with SQL Azure to consider, scale-out, and potentially other issues. Same goes with installing SQL Server in a VM Role.
Support issues aside, you could look into Azure Connect as a way to reach an on-premise SQL Server instance. This alleviates your need to store SQL Server data files in a Cloud Drive. This will have bandwidth-related performance and cost implications, but it's certainly an option.
CloudDrive is not intended for scaling out. In other words, a blob can be mounted by no more than 1 VM at the same time. This limitation is very unlikely to be lifted in the future, as a single blob is note intended to support scalable writes.