I want to do a benchmark between databases (MySQL Cluster, HBase and Cassandra) but I don't have a distributed architecture. is there any website that gives the possibility to use servers remotely. I need 8 servers for a period of 1 month. If it's possible, how much does it cost?
Try any cloud provider Oracle, Amazon, Google, Microsoft Azure.
Related
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.
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 have an operational SQL VM in Azure. How do I provision Azure to see it under SQL Databases and provide it as an option when creating something like Mobile Services?
That is not possible. The SQL Database feature is a service and, while it does run a highly compatible SQL Server environment, it is not the same as the SQL Server you would install on premises, or on a hosted virtual machine. There is not a way to "register" an existing SQL Server database, either in or outside of Azure, as a SQL Database instance.
If you want to have the Mobile Services system pointing to a SQL Server instance that is NOT a SQL Database I do not believe that is possible either. You can post a suggestion to the http://www.mygreatwindowsazureidea.com/forums/34192-general-feedback- site. The product group does monitor this and take it into account during product backlog sessions.
I have been working on the software using a SQL Server database. Now I am in the phase when I would like to provide this software for other people, but I don't know how to manage the database. The thing is that it is really inconvenient when installing my software to also install SQL Server at the users computer (many unexpected thing could happen).
Therefore I thought that I would pay for web hosting with SQL Server, but it is:
Expensive (just for database with few tables).
Most of the web hosting don't offer remote access to the SQL Server database (so I can't connect there from my software).
So there is my question, what would you do? My own virtual server? (even more expensive), or would you install SQL Server on users computer? Or do you know where to get only SQL Server hosting for low costs?
I don't advice using a remote SQL Server. SQL Connections strongly depend on network connection and the Internet is not "stable" enough for that. There are also performance issues that will make your application completely useless.
One important thing you didn't mention is whether different users will share the same data or will have their own. If each user will use their own data you can install a "local" SQL Server Edition (SQL Compact Edition, here is the reference)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa983341(v=vs.110).aspx
In case several users will share the same data, you shouldn't rely on the database solely. One possible approach is having an Application server that implements business logic whereas your desktop application stays actiong as a "dumb" client. This is a lot better for performance and reduce data transfer problems. You can implement webservices for you application server. This is a good solution as the data is transfered from he application server to the clients through HTTP/HTTPS and this relieves you from dealing with ports and other communication issues. An alternative is using Microsoft Communication Framework (WCF)
Good luck!
I am using Django on Windows 2003 Server SP2 and IIS 6 with pyisapi.
Do you recommend using sqlite3 on this production server?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using sqlite3 on a production server in general and especially on Windows 2003 Server.
Our application is an order management tool which will have 5 clients accessing it (not necessarily concurrently). It is only used on an intranet. For this purpose we have adjusted the admin interface to our needs.
SQLite is an excellent product. It's very simple to use and deploy, is very fast, highly reliable and doesn't typically require any external administration. It uses very few operating system resources, allowing you do better utilize the operating system and hardware resources that are available. SQLite is used by many projects.
You may also want to look into Berkeley DB's SQL API. It's completely SQLite compatible. In addition, it offers concurrency (multiple readers and writers active in the database), scalability (BDB manages databases in the 100's of GB to TB range today) and HA (High Availability either for load balancing or for hot standby with automatic failover) above and beyond what's currently available with SQLite.