May 7, 2014 at 4:47 am
I'm currently researching this functionality for incorporation into a Cloud App to facilitate scaling out of an Azure SQL Database but also importantly to separate the IO/DTU to act as a replacement for File Groups within SQL Server.
At the moment I'm leaning towards a second independent Azure SQL database server for certain tables (writes only) and handling the data separation programmatically within the Application. This will work as there is no logical relationship between the two data-sets referenced by the Application (writes and read/writes) and I don't want reporting (eg. SSRS) on this second data-set (writes) to impact the first (read/writes), in terms of DTU.
But to aid this decision, I cannot find any information regarding the connection between Federated Member table(s) and whether they must reside in the same Azure SQL Database server. I know they must reside in a separate database and it seems implicit that they must be co-hosted by zero mention of anything otherwise, but this also means they'll live under the same DTU restriction (due to billing, etc).
References:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/hh597455.aspx (Managing Azure Federations)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn495641.aspx (scaling out Azure SQL Databases).
May 7, 2014 at 5:51 am
You'll need to reexamine your plans. Federation has been cut from the product. It's not off all the data centers yet, but it will be. You'll need to shard manually which means you can largely set it up how you want.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
May 7, 2014 at 6:50 am
Ah, thanks Grant, I guess that lends considerable weight to my design choice of independent database. I understood it that Federation will be cut from Web and Business editions, there is no mention of Basic, Standard and Premium.
Are you saying that this functionality is being completely withdrawn?
May 7, 2014 at 7:18 am
Yep. It's on the chopping block. They've discouraged people from using it for over a year and now they've cut it from the product. Suggestions are that there may be something coming to replace it, but that's all I know. The new 500gb databases don't even have it as an option.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply