I'm designing a system that checks a given website for any security vulnerabilities. The system includes a client (firefox plugin) and a server. The server does all the scanning while the client just relays that info to the user. If a website is dangerous, it is blacklisted; otherwise whitelisted.
The system must hypothetically be able to handle several thousands of requests and updates to the database simultaneously.
Although the database is expected to have a very simple structure, I am still considering using NoSQL because my understanding is that it can handle a greater amount of queries. Is this true? Which db technology is better suited for my system?
I suggest a NoSQL database.
In fact I've been working with two databases in the last weeks, and searching on internet I found the differences between a NoSQL an a SQL database.
Pratically, you should use a NoSQL db if you have a lot of data to query. Remind that it's not sure the data recovery in case of a db disaster.
Instead, use a SQL database if your data MUST be permanent, and you can't lose it. But query times will be longer, so it's not suggested if you have tons of data.
I understood, from what you wrote, that you need lot of queries and you "can lose" the data (if you lose a website of the list, you'll just need to re-check it, right?).
So I suggest you to go for a NoSQL db (I worked with MongoDb, it is the most famous worl-wide).
If you consider NoSQL Databases you have to analyze your data to get the right Database.
For your use case I think you should look at document databases (like MongoDB) or, if you want really high performance, a key-value Database like Redis or Riak.
With Key-Value databases you can only use the key to find the data you want.
With document databases you still have some kind of querys to find the data.
For further information look at: http://nosql-database.org/
I'm currently developing a service for an App with WCF. I want to host this data on windows-azure and it should host data from differed users. I'm searching for the right design of my database. In my opinion there are only two differed possibilities:
Create a new database for every customer
Store a customer-id to every table (or the main table when every table is connected via entities)
The first approach has very good speed and isolating, but it's very expansive on windows azure (or am I understanding something of the azure pricing wrong?). Also I don't know how to configure a WCF- Service that way, that it always use another database.
The second approach is low on speed and the isolating is poor. But it's easy to implement and cheaper.
Now to my question:
Is there any other way to get high isolation of data and also easy integration in a WCF- service using azure?
What design should I use and why?
You have two additional options: build multiple schema containers within a database (see my blog post about this technique), or even better use SQL Database Federations (you can use my open-source project called Enzo SQL Shard to access federations). The links I am providing give you access to other options as well.
In the end it's a rather complex decision that involves a tradeoff of performance, security and manageability. I usually recommend Federations, even if it has its own set of limitations, because it is a flexible multitenant option for the cloud with the option to filter data automatically. Check out the open source project - you will see how to implement good separation of customer of data independently of the physical storage.
I'm considering undertaking a project to migrate a very large MS Access application to a new system based on SQL Server. The existing system is essentially an ERP application with a couple of dozen users, all sharing the Access database over the network. The database has around 300 tables and lots of messy VBA code. This system is beginning to break down (actually, it's amazing it has worked as long as it has).
Due to the size and complexity of the Access application, a 'big bang' approach is not really feasible. It seems sensible to rope off chunks of functionality and migrate them piecemeal to the new system. During the migration process, which I expect to take several months, there may be a need for both databases to be in operation and be able to query and modify data in both systems.
I have considered using something like the ADO.NET Entity Framework to implement a data abstraction layer to handle this, but as far as I can tell, the Entity Framework has no Access provider.
Does my approach seem reasonable? What other strategies have people used to accomplish similar goals?
You may find that the main problem is using the MS Access JET engine as the backend. I'm assuming that you do have an Access FE (frontend) with all objects except tables, and a BE (backend - tables only).
You may find that migrating the data to SQL Server, and linking the Access FE to that, would help alleviate problems immediately.
Then, if you don't want to continue to use MS Access as the FE, you could consider breaking it up into 'modules', and redesign modules one by one using a separate development platform.
We faced a similar situation a few years ago, but we knew from the beginning that we'll have to swich one day to SQL SERVER, so the whole code was written to work from an Access client to both Access AND SQL server databases.
The idea of having a 'one-step' migration to SQL server is certainly the easier way to manage this on the database side, and there are many tools for that. But, depending on the way your client app talks to the database, your code might then not work properly. If, for example, your code includes a lot of SQL instructions (or generates them on the fly by, for example, adding filters to SELECT instructions), your syntax might not be 'SQL server' compatible: access wildcards, dates, functions, will not work on SQL server.
In addition to this, and as said by #mjv, the other drawback of a one time switch to MS SQL is that you will inheritate many of the problems from the original database: wrong or inapropriate field names, inapropriate primary/foreign key policies, hidden one-to-many relations that you'd like to implement in the new database model, etc.
I'll propose here some principles and rules to implement a 'soft transition' solution, which clearly best fits you. Just to say that it's not going to be easy, but it's definitely very interesting, paticularly when dealing with 300 tables! Lucky you!
I assume here that yo have the ability to update the client code, and you'd prefer to keep at all times the same client interface. It is of course possible to have at transition time two different interfaces, one for each database, but this will be very confusing for the users, and a permanent source of frustration for them.
According to me, the best solution strongly depend on:
The original connection technology,
and the way data is managed in your
client's code: Access linked tables,
ODBC, ADODB, recordset, local
tables, forms recordsources, batch
updating, etc.
The possibilities to split your
tables and your app in 'mostly
independant' modules.
And you will not spare the following mandatory activities:
setup up of a transfer
procedure from Access database to SQL server. You
can use already existing tools (The
access upsizing wizard is very poor,
so do not hesitate to buy a real
one, like SSW or EMS SQL Manager,
very powerfull) or build your own
one with Visual Basic. If your plan
is to make some changes in Data
Definition, you'll definitely have
to write some code. Keep in mind
that you will run this code
maaaaaany times, so make sure that
it includes all time-saving
instructions that will allow you to
restart the process from the start
as many times as you want. You will
have to choose between 2 basic data
import strategies when importing data:
a - DELETE existing record, then INSERT imported record
b - UPDATE existing record from imported record
If you plan to switch to new Primary\foreign key types, you'll have to keep track of old identifiers in your new database model during the transition period. Do not hesitate to switch to GUID Primary Keys at this stage, especially if the plan is to replicate data on multiple sites one of these days.
This transfer procedure will be divided in modules corresponding to the 'logical' modules defined previously, and you should be able to run any of these modules independantly (keeping of course in mind that they'll probably have to be implemented in a specific order, where the 'customers' module has to run before the 'invoicing' module).
implement in your client's code the possibility to connect to both original ms-access database and new MS SQL server. Ideally, you should be able to manage from within your code both connections for displaying and validating data.
This possibility will be implemented by modules, where you will have, for each of them, a 'trial period', ie the possibility to choose at testing time between access connection and sql connection when using the module. Once testing is done and complete, the module can then be run in exclusive SQL server mode.
During the transfer period, that can last a few months, you will have to manage programatically the database constraints that exist between 'SQL server' modules and 'Access' modules. Going back to our customers/invoicing example, the customers module will be first switched to MS SQL. Before the Invoicing module can be switched, you'll have to implement programmatically the one to many relations between Customers and Invoices, where each of the tables will be in a different database. Such a constraint can be implemented on the Invoice form by populating the Customers combobox with the Customers recordset from the SQL server.
My proposal is to build your modules following your database model, allways beginning with the 'one' tables or your 'one-to-many' relations: basic lists like 'Units', 'Currencies', 'Countries', shall be switched first. You'll have a first 'hands on' experience in writting data transfer code, and managing a second connection in your client interface. You'll be then able to 'go up' in your database model, switching the 'products' and 'customers' tables (where units, countries and currencies are foreign keys) to the new server.
Good luck!
I would second the suggestion to upsize the back end to SQL Server as step 1.
I would never go to the suggested Step 2, though (i.e., replacing the Access front end with something else). I would instead suggest investing the effort in fixing the flaws of the schema, and adjusting the Access app to work with the new schema.
Obviously, it is never the case that everything just works hunky dory when you upsize -- some things that were previously quite fast will be dogs, and some things that were previously quite slow will be fast. And I've found that it is often the case that the problems are very often not where you anticipate that they will be. You can only figure out what needs to be fixed by testing.
Basically, anything that works poorly gets re-architected, or moved entirely server-side.
Leverage the investment in the existing Access app rather than tossing all that out and starting from scratch. Access is a fine front end for a SQL Server back end as long as you don't assume it's going to work just the same way as it would with a Jet/ACE back end.
...thinking out loud... I think this may work.
I appears that the complexity of the application resides in the various VBA modules rather than the database table/schema themselves. A possible migration path could therefore be to first migrate the data storage to SQL server, exactly as-is, as follow:
prevent any change to the data for a few hours
duplicate all tables to the SQL server; be sure to create the same indexes as well.
create linked tables to ODBC Source pointing to the newly created tables on SQL Server
these tables should have the very same name as the original tables (which therefore may require being renamed, say with a leading underscore, for possible reference).
Now, the application can be restarted and should be using the SQL tables rather than the Access tables. All logic should work as previously (right...), possible slowness to be expected, depending on the distance between the two machines.
All the above could be tested in about a day's work or so; the most tedious being the creation of the tables on SQL server (much of that can be automated, I'm sure). The next most tedious task is to assert that the application effectively works as previously, but with its storage on SQL.
EDIT: As suggested by a comment, I should stress that there is a [fair ?] possibility that the application would not readily work so smoothly under SQL server back-end, and could require weeks of hard work in testing and fixing. However, and unless some of these difficulties can be anticipated because of insight into the application not expressed in the question, I propose that attempting the "As-is" migration to SQL Server should be considered; after all, it may just work with minimal effort, and if it doesn't, we'd know this very quickly. This is therefore a hi-return, low risk proposal...
The main advantage sought with this approach is that there will be a single storage during the [as the OP expects] longer period during which the old Access application will co-exist with the new application.
The drawback of this approach, is that, at least at first, the schema of original database is reproduced verbatim, i.e. including some of its known quirks and legacy-herited idiosyncrasies. These schema issues (and the underlying application logic) can be in time corrected, but this is of course less easy than if the new application starts ab initio, with its own, separate, storage, and distinct schema.
After the storage is moved to SQL server, the most used and/or the most independent modules of the Access application can be re-written in the new application, and as significant portions of the original application is ported, effective usage, by select beta testers or by actual users can start to be switched to the new application.
Possibly, some kind of screen-scraping based logic or some other system could be used to produce an hybrid application which would provide the end users with a comprehensive application, which sometimes work from new logic, and sometimes from the original MS-Access program.
I'm a lead developer on a project which is building web applications for my companies SaaS offering. We are currently using LDAP to store user data such as IDs, passwords, contanct details, preferences and other user specific data.
One of the applications we are building is a reporting service that will both collect and present management information to our end users. Obviously this service will require a RDBMS but it will also need to access user data stored in LDAP.
As I see it we have a two basic implementation options:
Duplicate user data in both LDAP and the RDBMS.
Have the reporting service access LDAP whenever it needs user data.
Although duplicating data (and implementing the mechanisms to make this happen) as suggested in option 1 seems the wrong way to go, my gut feeling is that option 2 would not perform well enough (how do you 'join' LDAP data to RDBMS data as efficiently as a pure RDBMS implementation?).
I did find a related question but I'm still unsure which approach to take. I'd be interested in seeing what people thought of either option or perhaps other options.
Why would you feel that duplicating data would be the wrong way to go? Reporting tools (web based and otherwise) are mostly built around RDBMS's, so any mix'n'match will introduce unnecessary complexities. Reports are likely to need to be changed fairly frequently (from experience), so you want them to be as simple as possible. The data you store about users is unlikely to change its format very often, so once you have your import function working, you won't need to touch it again.
The only obstacle I can see is latency: how do you ensure that your RDBMS copy is up to date? You might need to ensure that your updating code writes to both destinations. Personally, also, I wouldn't necessarily use LDAP for application specific personal preferences: LDAP can't handle transactions, so what happens when data is updated from several directions? (Transactionality is of course also a problem with letting updaters write to both stores...) I'd rather let the RDBMS be the master for most data, and let LDAP worry only about identity, credentials and entitlements, which are rarely changed and only for one set of purposes. For myself, LDAP's ability to deal with hierarchical data isn't all that great a selling point.
Data duplication is not always a bad thing, especially when the usage scenarios are different enough.
SQL Server 2008 database design problem.
I'm defining the architecture for a service where site users would manage a large volume of data on multiple websites that they own (100MB average, 1GB maximum per site). I am considering whether to split the databases up such that the core site management tables (users, payments, contact details, login details, products etc) are held in one database, and the database relating to the customer's own websites is held in a separate database.
I am seeing a possible gain in that I can distribute the hardware architecture to provide more meat to the heavy lifting done in the websites database leaving the site management database in a more appropriate area. But I'm also conscious of losing the ability to directly relate the sites to the customers through a Foreign key (as far as I know this can't be done cross database?).
So, the question is two fold - in general terms should data in this sort of scenario be split out into multiple databases, or should it all be held in a single database?
If it is split into multiple, is there a recommended way to protect the integrity and security of the system at the database layer to ensure that there is a strong relationship between the two?
Thanks for your help.
This question and thus my answer may be close to the gray line of subjective, but at the least I think it would be common practice to separate out the 'admin' tables into their own db for what it sounds like you're doing. If you can tie a client to a specific server and db instance then by having separate db instances, it opens up some easy paths for adding servers to add clients. A single db would require you to monkey with various clustering approaches if you got too big.
[edit]Building in the idea early that each client gets it's own DB also just sets the tone for how you develop when it is easy to make structural and organizational changes. Discovering 2 yrs from now you need to do it will become a lot more painful. I've worked with split dbs plenty of times in the past and it really isn't hard to deal with as long as you can establish some idea of what the context is. Here it sounds like you already have the idea that the client is the context.
Just my two cents, like I said, you could be close to subjective on this one.
Single Database Pros
One database to maintain. One database to rule them all, and in the darkness - bind them...
One connection string
Can use Clustering
Separate Database per Customer Pros
Support for customization on per customer basis
Security: No chance of customers seeing each others data
Conclusion
The separate database approach would be valid if you plan to support per customer customization. I don't see the value if otherwise.
You can use link to connect the databases.
Your architecture is smart.
If you can't use a link, you can always replicate critical data to the website database from the users database in a read only mode.
concerning security - The best way is to have a service layer between ASP (or other web lang) and the database - so your databases will be pretty much isolated.
If you expect to have to split the databases across different hardware in the future because of heavy load, I'd say split it now. You can use replication to push copies of some of the tables from the main database to the site management databases. For now, you can run both databases on the same instance of SQL Server and later on, when you need to, you can move some of the databases to a separate machine as your volume grows.
Imagine we have infinitely fast computers, would you split your databases? Of course not. The only reason why we split them is to make it easy for us to scale out at some point. You don't really have any choice here, 100MB-1000MB per client is huge.