I have created a new Azure Database and I want to start developing against it. Is there a way to indicate that this database is a DEV only database? I do not want to get charged for it until I am ready to go to production. Is there such an option?
Additionally, a singelton Basic database starts at $5/month [link]. Combined with an Azure Free Trial [link], one can make this offer stretch quite a bit for a dev environment.
When you create new website you can also choose to create new free database for this website
Related
I have a simple app that pulls jobs in from a server and has two way sync App<-->Server. The jobs need to be able to be populated into either the App or the server.
Is there anyway for me to create this infrastructure using realm/react-native without paying $1500 a month?
I'd really like to use realm for this project but there is no way I can afford that much. Any ideas?
Thanks
It almost sounds like something you would be able to achieve with the developer edition which is free. With "populate", are we talking 1000's of jobs? And is that a one time task or continuous?
If you make react native app that operates with the Realm Object Server, you can have a special admin UI in it that uses an admin user, which would enable you to update a realm with new jobs.
If you need code running on the server to continuously update the jobs etc., it is probably not achievable with the developer edition as it stands today. You could set up a mac to do so but that is probably not feasible.
I have a prototype paas (platform as a service). The solution currently saves data for all customers in a single sql instance. For now this is fine, but I worry about slowdowns when the db grows. I reason I could keep the service running fast if each customer had their own database.
I was looking on the Azure portal and I found nothing. I can easily create a new database manually - but - I don't want that, I want to keep everything automated. Is there a way I can setup a sql server 'group' ?
While I am at it, SQL is not a requirement. My data is noSQL ready. Is this something I could do with monogoDB running on a worker role ? me.
You should look at the Azure DocumentDb preview, which is a NoSQL database provided as a managed service.
There is a Azure SQL Managment Nuget
http://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.WindowsAzure.Management.Sql
http://www.bradygaster.com/post/managing-windows-azure-sql-databases-using-the-management-libraries-for-net
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 have a vb.net windows form application with a database on SQL Server 2008 on the ./SQLEXPRESS instance.
I have created a setup of my project using the link below..
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/49b92ztk(v=vs.80).aspx
When a user installs my application, the database will be available for him, and user can just export the SQL Server database.
How can I secure my database so that user shouldn't have a easily available copy of my database?
I thought of creating a new password protected server (as I have created the database in above walkthrough)... while installation of my application on user's pc, other than ./sqlexpress. And a complete copy of database used by my application will not be simply available for user to just export and get a copy of my database.
So could anyone please guide me...
The question is; how far do you want to go to protect your data?
Better protection of your data usually comes at the cost of more development time and likely less user friendliness, for example due to lower performance (encryption is not free). More complex code usually results in more support requests too.
Where the best balance is depends on your business model (if any) and on your user requirements.
Keep in mind that anything you deploy to an end-users machine is in the end vulnerable. If something is valuable enough there will be people trying to steal it.
So, you could argue that the best protection is not to deploy the data at all. You could back your end-user application with a web service and keep the data on your own server, for example in the cloud.
I've found however that you sometimes just need to trust your users. If you build a good product that makes them happy, they have no reason to steal from you. In fact, they are probably glad to pay you.
If you decide that you need to deploy the data and that you need to encrypt it, you should think about why you chose SQL Server.
What database features do you need exactly? Do you need a fullblown database server for that?
Any local admin can gain control over any SQL Server database in seconds so the built-in SQL server authentication will not bring you a lot of benefits.
You could switch to SQLServer CE and keep the database within your application. That would make the database a lot harder to access for a regular user.
If all you're doing is looking up words, you may be better off with a different storage engine like Lucene.
Lucene is actually a search engine, so it's highly optimized for matching words or parts of words.
You can run Lucene inside your .NET application so you don't even need the end-user to install SQL Server. There is a .NET version of Lucene here.
Lucene however doesn't protect your data. There's tooling available that will allow anybody to view and extract the data from the stored index files.
Since Lucene is open source though, you could extend it to support encrypted data storage (see this related question).
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