I am trying to find out what my options are for SQL Server hosting. The reason I am asking is because it always seems to be a problem getting the right kind of hosting for SQL Server. I mostly need a few small databases(<3Mb) for testing or to temporary store some data for clients when I am working on their website.
I could just pay 60-80 euro for a database each time I guess but that seems really expensive for a database with limited data and almost no bandwidth usage.
It can be really frustrating sometimes and it feels like I am always giving up some development "freedom" when I want to work with SQL Server. On the other hand it works so well with Asp.net so maybe that's the price I have to pay for using SQL Server.
So I was wondering how other people deal with this?
If you are truly a web company, I'd strongly suggest that you consider investing in a dedicated server. If this is just for fun/experimentation, of course, then this may well be too expensive.
When I started out, I leased a server with both IIS and SQL Server already installed (managed by MaximumASP, btw) and then added Databases and Sites to the server as needed. I believe that you can even do this with "Virtual" dedicated servers to keep costs fairly low (e.g. < $100 / month). Growth, of course, will push you to more sophisticated configurations like it did for me (e.g. dedicated SQL Servers, multiple server web farm, etc.). But if you don't start out with a solid foundation, you'll never get the growth.
SQL Azure.
Presuming your apps will play well with Sql Express, get a small virtual box for client QA and profit.
Related
I'm currently running an instance of MS SQL Server 2014 (12.1.4100.1) on a dedicated machine I rent for $270/month with the following specs:
Intel Xeon E5-1660 processor (six physical 3.3ghz cores +
hyperthreading + turbo->3.9ghz)
64 GB registered DDR3 ECC memory
240GB Intel SSD
45000 GB of bandwidth transfer
I've been toying around with Azure SQL Database for a bit now, and have been entertaining the idea of switching over to their platform. I fired up an Azure SQL Database using their P2 Premium pricing tier on a V12 server (just to test things out), and loaded a copy of my existing database (from the dedicated machine).
I ran several sets of queries side-by-side, one against the database on the dedicated machine, and one against the P2 Azure SQL Database. The results were sort of shocking: my dedicated machine outperformed (in terms of execution time) the Azure db by a huge margin each time. Typically, the dedicated db instance would finish in under 1/2 to 1/3 of the time that it took the Azure db to execute.
Now, I understand the many benefits of the Azure platform. It's managed vs. my non-managed setup on the dedicated machine, they have point-in-time restore better than what I have, the firewall is easily configured, there's geo-replication, etc., etc. But I have a database with hundreds of tables with tens to hundreds of millions of records in each table, and sometimes need to query across multiple joins, etc., so performance in terms of execution time really matters. I just find it shocking that a ~$930/month service performs that poorly next to a $270/month dedicated machine rental. I'm still pretty new to SQL as a whole, and very new to servers/etc., but does this not add up to anyone else? Does anyone perhaps have some insight into something I'm missing here, or are those other, "managed" features of Azure SQL Database supposed to make up the difference in price?
Bottom line is I'm beginning to outgrow even my dedicated machine's capabilities, and I had really been hoping that Azure's SQL Database would be a nice, next stepping stone, but unless I'm missing something, it's not. I'm too small of a business still to go out and spend hundreds of thousands on some other platform.
Anyone have any advice on if I'm missing something, or is the performance I'm seeing in line with what you would expect? Do I have any other options that can produce better performance than the dedicated machine I'm running currently, but don't cost in the tens of thousand/month? Is there something I can do (configuration/setting) for my Azure SQL Database that would boost execution time? Again, any help is appreciated.
EDIT: Let me revise my question to maybe make it a little more clear: is what I'm seeing in terms of sheer execution time performance to be expected, where a dedicated server # $270/month is well outperforming Microsoft's Azure SQL DB P2 tier # $930/month? Ignore the other "perks" like managed vs. unmanaged, ignore intended use like Azure being meant for production, etc. I just need to know if I'm missing something with Azure SQL DB, or if I really am supposed to get MUCH better performance out of a single dedicated machine.
(Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft, though not on Azure or SQL Server).
"Azure SQL" isn't equivalent to "SQL Server" - and I personally wish that we did offer a kind of "hosted SQL Server" instead of Azure SQL.
On the surface the two are the same: they're both relational database systems with the power of T-SQL to query them (well, they both, under-the-hood use the same DBMS).
Azure SQL is different in that the idea is that you have two databases: a development database using a local SQL Server (ideally 2012 or later) and a production database on Azure SQL. You (should) never modify the Azure SQL database directly, and indeed you'll find that SSMS does not offer design tools (Table Designer, View Designer, etc) for Azure SQL. Instead, you design and work with your local SQL Server database and create "DACPAC" files (or special "change" XML files, which can be generated by SSDT) which then modify your Azure DB such that it copies your dev DB, a kind of "design replication" system.
Otherwise, as you noticed, Azure SQL offers built-in resiliency, backups, simplified administration, etc.
As for performance, is it possible you were missing indexes or other optimizations? You also might notice slightly higher latency with Azure SQL compared to a local SQL Server, I've seen ping times (from an Azure VM to an Azure SQL host) around 5-10ms, which means you should design your application to be less-chatty or to parallelise data retrieval operations in order to reduce page load times (assuming this is a web-application you're building).
Perf and availability aside, there are several other important factors to consider:
Total cost: your $270 rental cost is only one of many cost factors. Space, power and hvac are other physical costs. Then there's the cost of administration. Think work you have to do each patch Tuesday and when either Windows or SQL Server ships a service pack or cumulative update. Even if you don't test them before rolling out, it still takes time and effort. If you do test, then there's a second machine and duplicating the product instance and workload for test.
Security: there is a LOT written about how bad and dangerous and risky it is to store any data you care about in the cloud. Personally, I've seen way worse implementations and processes on security with local servers (even in banks and federal agencies) than I've seen with any of the major cloud providers (Microsoft, Amazon, Google). It's a lot of work getting things right then even more work keeping them right. Also, you can see and audit their security SLAs (See Azure's at http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/support/trust-center/).
Scalability: not just raw scalability but the cost and effort to scale. Azure SQL DB recently released the huge P11 edition which has 7x the compute capacity of the P2 you tested with. Scaling up and down is not instantaneous but really easy and reasonably quick. Best part is (for me anyway), it can be bumped to some higher edition when I run large queries or reindex operations then back down again for "normal" loads. This is hard to do with a regular SQL Server on bare metal - either rent/buy a really big box that sits idle 90% of the time or take downtime to move. Slightly easier if in a VM; you can increase memory online but still need to bounce the instance to increase CPU; your Azure SQL DB stays online during scale up/down operations.
There is an alternative from Microsoft to Azure SQL DB:
“Provision a SQL Server virtual machine in Azure”
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/virtual-machines-provision-sql-server/
A detailed explanation of the differences between the two offerings: “Understanding Azure SQL Database and SQL Server in Azure VMs”
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/data-management-azure-sql-database-and-sql-server-iaas/
One significant difference between your stand alone SQL Server and Azure SQL DB is that with SQL DB you are paying for high levels of availability, which is achieved by running multiple instances on different machines. This would be like renting 4 of your dedicated machines and running them in an AlwaysOn Availability Group, which would change both your cost and performance. However, as you never mentioned availability, I'm guessing this isn't a concern in your scenario. SQL Server in a VM may better match your needs.
SQL DB has built in availability (which can impact performance), point in time restore capability and DR features. You have the option to scale up / down your DB based on your usage to reduce the cost. You can improve your query performance using Global query (shard data). SQl DB manages auto upgrades and patching and greatly improves the manageability story. You may need to pay a little premium for that. Application level caching / evenly distributing the load, downgrading when cold etc. may help improve your database performance and optimize the cost.
We are finding Azure SQL Database very slow. Its probably about 10x slower than the same spend on a SQL on an Azure VM.
However a VM based solution requires maintenance and backups and im concerned I'll loose the VM and data if something horrible goes wrong.
Thus the SQL Azure solution seems safer to me. So I have two specific questions.
Are you seeing this speed difference and if so is there a solution
Is there any nice solution for ensure the SQL on VM is backed up automatically and offsite.
Azure SQL database is slightly slower than SQL Server on Azure Virtual Machine. However, we didn't find it as slow as 10X. May be you should try Premium tier, which delivers more powerful and predictable performance, in case your database is in some other tier.
Regarding SQL Server on Azure Virtual Machine, there is support available for automated backup and patching. Please visit the below link for more details.
http://azure.microsoft.com/blog/2015/01/29/automated-everything-with-sql-server-on-iaas-vms/
While performance analysis, it is worth checking for ASYNC_NETWORK_IO wait type. Make Sure your client application is deployed close to your database in Azure.
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.
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
I am having some difficulty in determining how best to implement the different parts of reporting services.
Our company has just bought a new slew of servers and a shared SAN to support our growing infrastructure.
Our servers are running VMware and we have several virtual machines each with their own tasks load balanced across the set of physical machines. We currently have an application server which runs terminal services, and a SQL box which runs 2005 to hold our data, as well as several others for other purposes unrelated to our database.
My question is:
What would be the ideal installation of reporting services in a virtual environment? We will still be dealing with the same amount of resources if we install everything on our current SQL box, or slice up the installation into several virtual machines. Slicing the configuration into distinct machines would help load balancing, but slicing it up will also require more licenses.
My current thought was to install the report server database on the same box that currently has our sql databases and install the report server service on another box to keep iis off the sql box with our operational data.
How difficult would it be to migrate from one configuration to another, or would i be pretty much locking myself into something once a decision is made?
Editing: Adding my options
The different configurations i can think of
A) benefit : easiest to set up. downside : scale out requires migrating back end
1. SQL Data Box holding our production data
2. Reporing Services DB, Reporting Services Service, and IIS
B) benefit : supports scale out without migrating back end
1. SQL Data Box holding our production data, and Reporting Services DB
2. Reporting Services Service, and IIS
C) benefit : best for load balancing virtual machines across hardware, supports scale out without changes. downside : most expensive for licenses
1. SQL Data Box holding our production data
2. Reporting Services DB
3. Reporting Services Service, and IIS
D) benefit : cheapest for Licenses. downside : lots
1. Everything on one box
So options A or B are my front-runners, with B having no drawbacks i can think of, but not sure what kind of load reporting services has on it's database if that would be a noticeable impact as the production data box will be being queried for the raw data as well. Option A would allow me to slice off a new virtual server and play with it while developing and keeping everything off our production box and we could then change our data sources to point to the production box and roll it out.
I'm still not sure what the best option is, so if anyone else has opinions they would be welcomed.
Thanks again, Wesley
I have never done it but this article tells you how to do the remote install which is pretty common.
This article tells you how to move the database to another machine. Presumably this would allow you to migrate between both methods.
Personally I would try to pick the option you are hoping to stick with because in my experience with microsoft, installation instructions are more reliable than migration instructions.