Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Can you give me a hint a pros and cons on wheather to choose RavenHQ or host raven in our own server?
Facts
Internet Web application (OLTP)
30 000 documents or records per month will be generated
Approx. 300 users (data entry) simultaneously (maybe less but needs to scale up to 300 hundred if neccessary)
4 Admins for reporting and issues
Will have to maintain end of day backup
Will have to replicate to SQL or other RDBMS for reporting purpose
(like Datawarehouse)
Will enable Versioning Bundle for audit trail
Absolutely critical in terms of loosing money if it doesn't work
Working time from morning till afternoon
Please advise me for the most reliable and fast choice, I'm not considering the cost in this choice?
RavenHQ or host raven in our own dedicated Server?
I would recommend RavenHQ with a Replicated Plan due to your requirement that it was Absolutely critical to work. With a dedicated server you have a single point of failure so it goes down nothings is going to work. It supports your:
backup requirement (https://ravenhq.zendesk.com/entries/24241973-Periodic-Backups-to-Amazon-S3-Glacier)
has the Versioning Bundle (https://ravenhq.zendesk.com/entries/21336716-What-RavenDB-bundles-are-supported-)
would easily support 300 simultaneous users
30k documents a month would be about 450megs of space a month which would be covered by the Gold and Platinum level plans.
Unsure what you mean by 4 Admins so I can not comment on that.
You would have to write your own data warehousing service as SQL Replication is not a supported plug-in but that would be very easy to do.a
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
What is the "best practice" approach to querying for reporting purposes when no replica is available and non-production environments have significant data integrity issues?
While restores can occur, they are typically seen as an infrequent occurrence, and isn't truly sustainable if reporting is required daily.
As #LukStorms mentioned in the comment, there are lot of unknowns here.
This can vary a lot from organization to organization and the answer also depends on the use case. You really do not need to query the production DB but all you want to see is up to date information which is only available in production database in your case. Below points or questions might be helpful to solve the problem( not necessarily access to prod db) :
As the other DB environments are not being maintained and if your database is setup on cloud like AWS. AWS lets you make a copy of prod which is updated/synched and you can query the prod-snapshot instead of the actual live db.
A clone( or spin up a temporary copy of production db for testing purposes). something like https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/sql-server-blog/fundamentals-cloning-a-production-database-to-a-test-server/ba-p/383852
Setup an agreement with the DBA to refresh test/non-prod DBs regularly.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm just starting to get into web development, and I am planning a website.
This website will have users that can edit data. Think of it like a tree:
Theres the organisation (company), then under the organisation there are users. Each user can have multiple "clients", and the user can edit data about the "client" and share that data. The type of data are numbers and text mostly, and possibly some images.
What database paradigm would be best suited to this? I was thinking documents or relational. I want low-cost, but also lots of room for horizontal (and possible vertical) scaling.
Thanks :)
Considering your requirement, Google Cloud SQL will be the best option for you. It provides data manipulation option and horizontal scaling.
Google Cloud SQL is a fully-managed database service that offers high performance, scalability, and convenience. Hosted on Google Cloud Platform, Cloud SQL provides a database infrastructure for applications running anywhere.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm working on a side project of mine using rails api. The app is like a project manager which the structure is gonna be different based on the company type. For example a company which is doing production is different with a company that provides services. Does it make sense to use multi db in this case so based on the company type the users are gonna have different interface and structures?
Thanks for your time in advance
It makes sense to use multiple databases when you're reaching the resource limits of a single database in your application. Of course this presumes you have also followed best practices along the way (efficient queries, effective caching strategies, etc.) Rails 6 has support for replicas which allow you to automatically separate your db writes from your db reads based on the HTTP verb. Beyond replicas, Rails 6 supports using a distinct database with its own replica for a custom collection of ActiveRecord models.
For more details I would recommend taking a look at the Rails Guides on Multiple Databases.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am coding vb.net 2008 some small database-based applications. I can not decide which database management system to use that can give me the best performance (MS Access, Excel, SQL).
My application will be a multi-user database system where more than 3 will be running the software at the same time. The database may contain up to 25.000 records.
I was thinking about .MDF database but I am not sure what exactly they are! My questions about them are:
1) Is it possible to deploy this type of databases to a server so that multi users can use it at the same time(read,edit and add data)?
2) Will it give me high performance if I input about 25.000 records?
Any suggestion about this subject will help a lot.
Thanks in advanced.
.mdf files are Microsoft SQL Server databases.
In other words, they are intended to be put on a server for multiple users, and they are intended to be used with high load.
(for SQL Server, 25.000 records and "more than 3" users is nothing)
Compared to the alternatives you mentioned, you will definitely get the best performance with SQL Server.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Does anyone have information/ideas about offloading SQL data processes to other hardware, possibly in a cloud environment (internal or external)? We have nightly processes that we really don't have the processing power to complete in a nightly fashion and are looking for other alternatives. We are considering new hardware, but that won't happen for a while.
More details about out situation:
We are using & licensed(SA) for Sql Server 2008, 2 cpu currently. The server is backended by an EVA 4000 with maxed out spindles. Our database is almost 2TB in size. We have lots of nightly processes that crunch data for summary tables and that do scheduling of our customer email sends. Currently, we are limited by what the EVA can physically do. Most of the time, the read and writes are what take the longest. We are considering moving off the EVA for something else, but this will not happen until 2013 or 2014.
I would recommend you checkout Amazon Web Services: http://aws.amazon.com/running_databases/