Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 123»»»

Getting started with SQL Azure Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:49 PM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 4:42 AM
Points: 460, Visits: 2,523
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Getting started with SQL Azure

.
Post #806934
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:34 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 8, 2011 2:23 AM
Points: 56, Visits: 116
Many thanks Jacob for taking the trouble to post this;

I had been wondering about Azure, and now have much more confidence to step into a trial of it.

About pricing: this link shows how it works both during CTP and commercially.

kind regards
Pete
Post #806996
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:44 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 7:04 AM
Points: 1,030, Visits: 2,795
How do we think the Cloud will affect the 'employability' of the DBA?

Do we think it will reduce the amount of DBA jobs available? (as a results of adavantage 'Free from administrative headaches?')

does the cloud mean and end to the DBAs Job?


Gethyn Ellis

gethynellis.com
Post #807011
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:45 AM
SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:08 PM
Points: 80, Visits: 333

You beat me to the punch, and nicely I might add. Not finding ANYTHING on this subject, I just submitted an intro article on SQL Azure to SSC. I didn't know about these other clients, so thanks for letting me know!
Post #807057
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:01 AM


Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 7, 2012 9:23 AM
Points: 304, Visits: 716
Thanks for a insightful, informative primer on Azure!


There's no such thing as dumb questions, only poorly thought-out answers...
Post #807063
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:44 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:11 AM
Points: 7, Visits: 21
Jacob and others,
I may be a neophyte, but I am curious as to what you and others believe the Azure environment will provide over an existing IIS and web based applications...I don't see the return on investment in the model....Hence, can you expound on why an organization would buy azure space versus the traditional IIS and browser based applications? Thanks.
Post #807088
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:34 AM


SSChasing Mays

SSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing MaysSSChasing Mays

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 24, 2013 5:20 AM
Points: 660, Visits: 558
bwieland (10/22/2009)
Jacob and others,
I may be a neophyte, but I am curious as to what you and others believe the Azure environment will provide over an existing IIS and web based applications...I don't see the return on investment in the model....Hence, can you expound on why an organization would buy azure space versus the traditional IIS and browser based applications? Thanks.


I'm no expert in SQL Azure, I haven't even had my invitation code yet, also I'm not sure on what the pricing model will be once the CTP is over so this is all speculative, but for us there could be a number of possibilities.
We're never going to be able to get directors to buy in to putting sensitive or critical data out in the cloud straight away, but there are a few database candidates here where it could work out a lot more cost effective to farm them out to the cloud.

One example: We sell insurance, and the majority of our retail business comes via the web. Our main site relies on a tiny SQL database that just contains 'reference data', like drop downs, up to date motor info etc. Nothing sensitive, risk info etc all goes elsewhere via other web services. But if that database wasn't available the site wouldn't work and we'd lose a lot of business. It costs to have the high availability clusters and the DR redundant hardware and data centres that it takes to keep that one database online 24/7 come hell or high water, and I wonder what the cost difference will be in hosting that on Azure?

EDIT: typo


--------
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. -Douglas Adams
Post #807151
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:53 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 8, 2011 2:23 AM
Points: 56, Visits: 116
Rob Goddard (10/22/2009)
also I'm not sure on what the pricing model will be once the CTP is over

See the link on reply number 1 for pricing.
Post #807178
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:17 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:02 AM
Points: 389, Visits: 1,074
GRE-452109 (10/22/2009)
How do we think the Cloud will affect the 'employability' of the DBA?

Do we think it will reduce the amount of DBA jobs available? (as a results of adavantage 'Free from administrative headaches?')

does the cloud mean and end to the DBAs Job?


reading an article by Brent Ozar he mentions

"...I don't think DBAs are the target market for SQL Server in the cloud. If a company has enough database needs to hire a full-time DBA, then they also probably have enough needs to build their own database server infrastructure internally as well."

I certainly hadnt considered it that way before I must admit... certainly everywhere you look microsoft seem extremely keen to point out this isnt the end of the dba as we know it etc .. is this because they need dba "buy in" for the concept ... maybe the equivalent of the "no further redundancies planned at this stage" speech Im sure a few of us of have heard before....

Patric McElroy was obviously keen to state it would increase the richness of the features a dba can offer.... hmmmmmmmm


~simon



Post #807296
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:17 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:06 AM
Points: 12, Visits: 53
We will likely never use cloud computing for a number of reasons, most of which are legal issues. Many of these issues go back to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. That was the law that required companies whose computing equipment that are a part of the e-mail infrastructure to retain copies of all e-mail messages that pass through their servers for at least 90 days. Current pending legislation that has already passed in the House of Representatives and is awaiting passage in the Senate would extend that holding period to two years.

Existing case law indicates that rights to privacy seem to vanish when data of any kind is stored in any more or less public repository. For example, in United States v. Councilman (case #03-1383, 6/29/2004), it was decided that defendant Councilman did nothing illegal when he directed his ISP to produce a program for internal use that would read e-mail messages sent to his customers from Amazon.com before those messages had been delivered to their intended recipients. The basis of that decision was that the messages were in temporary storage in RAM or on hard discs. Google "processes" gmail subscribers' e-mail messages at the specific direction of its advertisers in order to enable them to target their advertising to users more precisely. In short, putting anything in a cloud environment sacrifices rights to privacy and confidentiality. Companes that say they keep tight reins on information obtained from their customers and which at the same time use cloud computing in order to mitigate expenses are either engaging in self-deception or sophistry.

Taking things a bit further, let's say that a company were to be sued civily. Current legal practices emphasize the use of e-discovery, a process that requires opposing parties to produce volumes of digital evidence in response to demands from their counterparties. The scope of such demands include all e-mail messages; instant messages; electronic documents; exact copies of entire hard discs from workstations and servers either on premises or off including those owned by 1099 contractors, home computers (if companies allow employees to do work from home), and off shore developers; cached files produced by web browers; recoverable deleted files; cell phones and PDAs; and other forms of electronic communication that have the capacity to be persisted in some form of storage.

Let's say that a company were to use Google's services for storage of data. Google maintains data centers around the globe, some of them in Eastern Europe and Russia. Some of the data centers where it holds data are not owned by Google itself; instead it leases space in those facilities. Now let's say that a client company gets sued and a demand for production of data commences. Imagine the cost and complexity of obtaining data from a data center located in Russia that is operated by Russian nationals under Russian law.

How expensive can it get? In the 2001 case of Rowe Entertainment, Inc v. William Morris Agency just shy of $11 million was spent on e-discovery before the litigants even appeared on the first day of the trial. Most patent infringement cases today cost around $4.5 million, most of that being e-discovery costs. It is assumed by many in the legal profession that the average case involving a small- to medium-sized company would entail between $2-3.5 million in e-discovery costs.

Let's take a much smaller and more personal example. A friend of mine who runs a one-man software company recently sued a client for reverse engineering and decompiling software that he provided the client under license prohibiting such acts. The actual monetary damages were not yet realized, but had they been, the amount would have been in the range of $150-200 K. The trial itself which lasted four days cost him $80,000. The e-discovery costs preceeding the trial amounted to more than $300,000.

The latest fashion in computing management of documents is "de-duplication," a technique of data storage that keeps only the most current versions documents and data in archives intended for either later reference or disaster recovery. Anyone who has ever worked with an attorney will know that attorneys are paper-centric in their thought processes. They don't want to see what you have now but rather what you had 3 years ago that you sent to the person who is now suing you. They want to see the revisions of documents, the process of communication, the promises made in the ebb and flow of the relationship before everything went sour. Those are the pieces of information that they would use to build your defense in court. De-duplication destroys every shred of that grist for the defense.

CTOs, DBAs, and application programmers often take the initiative to do things that promise to streamline operations and reduce capital costs. That is an excellent motive, but often in the hindsight afforded to a litigator such actions can be the death knell for a company. Destruction of evidence, even if unintentional, can lead to charges of spoliation which can eviscerate a company's defense.

I am not an attorney, but I have come to believe that either a staff attorney or outside counsel should be made a part of the decision making group when it comes to data practices in a company. Most attorneys couldn't put a simple Lego toy together in under 24 hours let alone pretend to know what class inheritance or an iterative loop is. What they do know, however, is what the court system will expect to be produced in litigation, and it behooves any company that believes that it will eventually have to step into a courtroom as a defendant (i.e. everyone) to maintain its data accordingly.

What are the implications of this? It means that when data is stored, it needs to be stored in two entirely different ways, each with their own disaster recovery plans. The first way is the tradition IT way - minimal footprints, keeping only the most current data for purposes of recovery, and being able to produce a quick restore to get things running when bad things happen.

The second way targets the needs of the business as a legal entity. Data has to be categorized based on its likely use in a legal defense. Things can only be deleted according to specific, legally defensible written policies after so many months have elapsed. Revisions of documents have to be maintained as well as the final documents. When a final document has been produced, a hash of the document has to be produced and published so that later pretenders can be disproven to be authentic. The computational method for producing the hash has to be saved along with all software and operating systems that were used to produce the documents. Cloud computing should only be used for things that contain ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is confidential, private, or even remotely so since cloud storage forfeits any rights to privacy. That includes e-mail messages (which are usually the most damning pieces of evidence), documents and memos, and databases.

Your reaction might be, "If that's the case, is it really cheaper to store anything digitally instead of on paper?" Your reaction might be right. The nice thing about paper is that when a final document is produced, the possibility for alteration becomes severly limited. It can be locked in a vault, and that's the end of the life cycle for that document. Paper consumes natural resources and space, however, and it was the urge to reduce those costs that helped fueled the drive toward electronic storage. Now, however, the digital world has taken on a life of its own, and the space required to store the data contained in electronic documents is being overwhelmed by the space requirements and computing costs for the storage and manipulation of the meta data, or data about the data.

On a closing note, serious thought needs to be given to the way that humans behave in a natural environment. Deforestation led to electronic storage out of good intentions, but now the power consumed to maintain what is admittedly the fragile state of data threatens to do even more harm. The sources of power used to keep the growing millions of servers, workstations, phones, televisions, lighting systems, cooling systems, and communication devices operating are generally fueled by coal. The delivery systems for the physical equipment and the people who operate them are generally fueled by fossil fuels. The technology that permits the use of these fuels assumes that robbing the atmosphere of oxygen and then dumping the byproducts produced from combustion back into the atmosphere is an acceptable practice. In the face of what is increasingly appearing to be unstoppable climate change, the computing industry's initiative has been toward so-called "green" computing. The intention is good, but if the growth of the scope and intensity of computing activity and resource consumption continues unabated, green computing will mean nothing. Which is more important, losing trees or losing air? The IT industry, like many other industries, is rapidly approaching a point at which it must become sufficiently self-aware to be able to say that perhaps it needs to throttle its own growth as an act of social conscience.
Post #807297
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 123»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse