I am trying to create a Azure SQL Database located in Australia Southeast. The problem is when I go to create a new server the Australian location (and others ) are missing from the location drop down.
Here is what I see on the Azure portal. I can create other resources (Web app) in Australia without a problem.
Any help would be great
Some subscriptions have restrictions on creating Compute and SQL resources in certain regions. The behavior you noticed was expected due to the subscription type and is not a service degradation. We are working on better communicating such region restriction information to make it clearer. We apologize for any confusion this might have caused.
Disclaimer: I am a Program Manager for Microsoft, working on SQL Server
Please have a look here. Even the Azure Management portal has both the Australian locations.
Related
Although Azure seems to have datacenters in Germany, I cannot select that region when creating a new SQL server on Azure Portal.
The Azure pricing page show prices for this region, so why it is not listed in the available options? Any restrictions?
There are restrictions on some Azure regions, based on your Azure account. A US based Azure account will typically not be able to use these regions for tax and legal reasons.
Full details on the German data-center GA is at this blog https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/microsoft-azure-germany-now-available-via-first-of-its-kind-cloud-for-europe/
Customers in the EU and EFTA can continue to use Microsoft cloud options as they do today, or, for those who want the option, they’re able to use the services from German datacenters
Since 2016 unfortunately nothing has changed until now (2023). Region Germany West Central (Frankfurt/Main) is available for Azure SQL but you can't create one. I worked last year a few month to install our infrastructure at Azure in that region until trying to create Azure SQL. You will get an error message when selecting the server location: "This location is not available". This has nothing to do with free or pay-as-you-go subscription. The answer from the dev support after opening a ticket (october 2022):
"Unfortunately, due to high demand for Azure SQL in this region, we
are not able to approve your quota request at this time. To ensure
that all customers can access the services they need, we are working
through approving quota requests as we bring additional capacity
online. We are continually investing in additional infrastructure to
expand our available resources. Apologies for the delay in being able
to increase the quota on your Azure subscription. No additional
details are needed from you at this time, your request will stay
pending. Thank you for your patience until we report back."
The problem is that microsoft is not working transparent und you loose so much time and money. They simply have no resources anymore.
People are asking this but they don't get answers and their questions get locked:
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/94278a11-c5ac-4239-b092-a256bb5c4488/why-germany-west-central-location-is-not-available-for-subscription?forum=ssdsgetstarted
https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/ac0376cb-2a0e-4dc2-a52c-d986989e6801/unable-to-create-sql-database-server?forum=ssdsgetstarted#00a598f2-5fd4-4c7e-ab91-913fae5ba7cc
https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/issues/52606
I am wondering whether Azure SQL resources in this region will be available after some time or not?
I create azure web app in west europe and azure sql database in west europe. When app connecting to sql database and execute simple select it takes 4 sec (even in local cheap hosting it takes 200-300ms). Its horrible. I create MySQL clear db and the same problem, horrible latency. The both services are in the same datacenter, why it takes so long time? How to fix it?
First what you can try is to scale your pricing plan on database server and App service. Besides, Azure has build in tool - Database Advisor, which can help you to fix your possible db issues (like add index). Finally - check out database metric (there is possibility to edit chart) to know for sure that this is network or db latency.
Hello I am looking for a little Direction / Guidance. I have built an application in vb.net using visual studio for my company that manages people and equipment. This application is installed on multiple computers in the office and updates a Microsoft Access Database which resides on one of our local Network Servers in the Building. What my goal for this is to have the application access the database from any location in or out of the network. I originally built this around an Access Database because it seemed the easiest at the time, I would like to re-create this in an SQL Database but am unsure how to and or what I need to do so I have this access with the application. I am confused to how the SQL database would work with the remote access I guess.. Do I need to have an SQL Engine installed on the Server or can I have the Database file just sitting there and access it through the IP with Username and Passwords? Should I purchase server space somewhere else and go that route? Is there any links or information anyone could direct me to, I have been reading about this for days but am not getting anywhere.. Just looking for some black and white answers to steer me in the right direction!!
Thanks Everyone!
I would recommend Azure. This article describes the process for migrating from Access to Azure:
Migrating Access Databases to SQL Server/Azure SQL DB (AccessToSQL)
All major SQL RDBMS client/server systems are built around the premise that clients will he accessing the relational database management services over a network (almost always over TCP/IP for anything developed or updated within the last couple of decades).
For the nodes (clients) on your local area network this should be relatively straightforward.
For remote access I strongly recommend requiring that they access your network through a quality VPN which has been professionally configured (and, preferably, is being professionally maintained).
As for the question of locally owned equipment vs. a virtually private server (VPS) that's mostly a cost consideration with tradeoffs on reliability of access, reliability of the hardware and storage, reliability and capacity of the backup systems, and the personnel costs and availability.
A well managed VPS offering can get you past all the preliminary hurdles to the point where you can focus on your development right away. The long term decisions about Tue production environment are best deferred until you have some functionality prototyped.
Right now, our application only has one Web Site instance along with SQL Database deployed at Azure US datacenter. We are looking for deploying more Web Site instance at other datacenter such as APAC and Europe. There still be a local SQL Database for each of those web site instance. We would like end user could fail over to another instance if his registered instance is not available, such as if US web site instance is down, we could fail over user to Europe instance. With this, we would need to synchronize local SQL Database at all data centers, US, Europe and APAC.
So we are looking for what's best approach to implement the database synchronization here for Azure SQL Database. Here are what we found at this point:
Azure Data Sync, it looks like that it is the perfect choice since it is available right away at Azure Management Portal and it would be up and running with some simple configuration. However there seems couple catches. The feature has been on preview about 2 years now (see this link with the following quote from comment):
SQL Data Sync has been in preview for over 2 years and the last update was December 2012. Has this been abandoned? Is this a technology we should encourage our clients to use? There absolutely needs to be an ability to synchronize data between a local SQL DB and Azure but Microsoft seems to have dropped this and I'm leery of putting a client on this only to find that the plug has been pulled. You owe it to your users to give us some information
I also saw the post Azure data sync not syncing all databases at SO, it seems that this feature is a second class feature at Azure and MS doesn't really pay sufficient attention to it. So I am worried how good it is.
Microsoft Sync Framework, it seems a more generic sync framework and more suitable for client and server sync instead of sync among server database. Plus it is not simple as above SQL Data Sync which is available just by configuration at Azure.
Any other suggestions on sql database sync at Azure? It would be really appreciated if you could share your experience here.
Thanks very much in advance for your insight.
Update:
Azure Data Sync is built upon using Microsoft Sync Framework: see link, the quote:
Microsoft SQL Data Sync is a cloud-based data synchronization service built on the Microsoft Sync Framework technologies.
Since no one is answering this question and I am going to do it myself. Based on some latest information, the Azure Data Sync is buggy and can not be used for production at this point. I guess that's the reason why it never moves out of preview even after around 2 years. There is no other good approach for handling Azure SQL Database sync at this point unless you want to build something yourself.
you can use RedGate Data Compare to sync your Azuresql DB with your Local DB
I am working on a project which uses a relational database (SQL Server 2008). The local (on-premises) application both reads and writes to the database. I am working on a different front end for Azure (MVC2 Web Role), which will use the same data, but in a read only fashion. If I was deploying a traditional web app, I would use SQL Express to act as the local database, and deploy changes with updates to the application (the data changes very slowly) or via some sync system.
With Azure, the picture is a little cloudy (sorry, I had to). I can't seem to find any information to indicate if SQL Express will work inside of Web Roles, and if so, how to do it. Does anyone know if using SQL Express in an Azure web role is possible?
Other options I could do if forced: SQL CE or use SQL Azure. Both have a number of downsides, and are definitely less than perfect.
Thanks,
Erick
Edit
I think my scenario may not have been clear enough.
This data won't change between deployments, and is only accessed from within the Web Role; it is basically a static cache. The on-premises part is kind of a red herring, as it doesn't impact the data on the web role (aside from being its source). Basically, what I want to do is have a local data store/cache that I use existing T-SQL/DAL code with.
While I could use SQL Azure, it doesn't add anything, and if anything only adds additional overhead and failure points. I could also use a VM Role, but that is way too costly/complex.
In a perfect world, I would package the MDF into the cspkg (so it gets deployed with the app) and then use it locally from within the role. If there is no way to do this, then that is ok and I need to figure out the pros and cons of other solutions. We don't live in a perfect world. :)
You might be able to run SQL Express using a custom VHD but you won't be able to rely on any data every being present on that VHD. The VMs are completely reset when they reboot - there is no physical persistence across reboots.
If you wanted to, you might be able to locate your entire SQL Server installation in Azure blob storage.
However, in doing all of this, you'll only be able to have one worker/web role that can use that database. Remember: a SQL Server database can only be attached to one SQL Server at a time. If you want to scale out, you'll have to create new SQL Server instances for every web/worker role.
Outside of cost concerns, I can't think of anything that is in SQL Express that should be a show stopper for 99.9% of applications out there.
Adding to Jeremiah's answer: SQL Azure should give you nearly everything SQL Express does today, and you can use the Sync service to synchronize on-premise SQL Server with SQL Azure.
If you installed SQL Express into a VM role, you'd be consuming around $90 monthly just for that instance, plus blob storage (you'd want a Cloud Drive for durability). By definition, a VM Role (or any role) must support scale-out; if you were to scale to 2 instances for whatever reason, both instances would need their own copy of the database, so you'd need to create a blob snapshot for each instance.
Keep in mind, though, if you choose to install SQL Express in a VM: once you're at 2 instances, along with, say, 20GB per instance of blob storage, you're nearing $200 monthly and you're maintaining your VM's OS patches, SQL Express configuration and updates, failure recovery procedures, etc. In contrast, SQL Azure at 20GB, while costing the same $200, will offer better performance and works with the sync service, while completely removing any OS or database server management tasks from you.
To add to the already existing answers and for anyone wondering if its a good idea to run SQL Express in the cloud:
it does makes sense as a temporary storage area. Consider this architectural approach:
say you're spinning up nodes to run jobs. Storing a gazillion of calculation results might be a good idea inside a local SQL Express for each node, and provide the aggregated responses immediately when the job finishes on the node. Transfer of the no longer hot results to off-prem SQL server for future reporting/etc can be done afterwords. SQL Azure may not be optimal from the volume/latency/cost perspective to store gazillion of results and ATS will not always fit the bill, especially when relational data, performance or existing code are involved.
To expand on what David mentioned you can register for SQL Azure Data Sync CTP2 that would allow sync from SQL Server to SQL Azure here: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/SQLAzure/datasync.aspx
Make sure to use CTP2 though since CTP1 did not support SQL Server.
If it's a read only local cache - SQL CE 4 or SQLite.
Both have Entity Framework providers.
If you're writing to it - SQL Azure