I experience really slow performance on SSMS (V 18) when connecting to an Azure database (as opposed to an on-premise database)
I get performance issues when using the Object Explorer -e.g. when opening a View definition or opening table Design view. Regular Query performance is not the issue.
Has anyone else experienced this?
What is the solution?
Your Azure database is hosted in the Azure cloud. You are connecting via port 1433 over the WWW. Things like the object explorer are heavy hits on network utilization and things like default timeouts etc. are going to be highly un-tuned to your situation. Some things you could do:
Fire up a VM in Azure, install SSMS, open the firewall ports and see if you experience a lot more performant SSMS features.
Validate, or improve your internet connection. Latency, down/up speed being highly important.
Lastly, as this is likely NOT your main issue, increase your tier level for the hosted database. Assuming this is a hosted database in Azure? The default tier is NOT very performant and if you have a lot of objects it's trying to pop into your object explorer, this could help.
In addition to #maplemale answer - check whether your database connection is set to Proxy or Redirect.
If you can open the 11000-11999 port range in your corporate network then you can benefit from a Redirect connection where your client connects directly to the VM hosting your database rather than being proxied by Azure.
Related
The solution consists of an SQL Database and desktop application working hard with that DB. DB Deployed as Azure SQL Database, application running on Azure Virtual Machine with Windows Server onboard. What is the deployment guidelines for this two services in Azure? I want to achieve max performance. Should they both be located in same resource group?
You will need to get your app and the database located as close as possible so yes the same resource group.
Make sure you do not have Mars enabled (MultipleActiveResultSets in connection string).
Make sure you do use connection pooling.
Read this to understand what you are dealing with:
https://www.simple-talk.com/sql/learn-sql-server/improving-the-quality-of-sql-server-database-connections-in-the-cloud/
Ed
I have a situation where clients connecting to my webservice(that exists on another server) must access SQL Server databases and SSAS servers.
It must use the credentials of the client that is calling the service when accessing the SQL Servers and SSAS cubes.
For this to work I do
var winId = HttpContext.Current.User.Identity as WindowsIdentity;
var ctx = winId.Impersonate();
//Access Database/SSAS
ctx.Undo();
in my service which works fine when accessing SQL Server databases.
However when I access the SSAS servers I get
"The connection either timed out or was lost"
There are a number of posts like
http://denglishbi.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/windows-server-2008-kerberos-bug-%E2%80%93-transport-connection-issues-with-ssas-data/
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/drjohn/archive/2009/03/28/kerberos-kills-large-mdx-queries-on-windows-server-2008-ssas.aspx
on this but I am using Windows Server 2008 R2
where my service lives so this should not be a problem as this bug should have been fixed by Microsoft.
Any information as to how to best diagnose this problem would be appreciated.
To clarify the SSAS servers do have SPNs. This was actually working at one point but has now stopped. Appears no sign of duplicate SPNs or anything.
What is interesting is it works intermittently on one SSAS server but seems to work all the time for the other.
They both have named SPNs as mentioned by this document
https://support.pyramidanalytics.com/entries/22056243-Configuring-Kerberos-Delegation-for-Named-Instances-of-SSAS-with-Active-Directory-and-additional-pro
My production environment is a load-balanced (and under heavy load) on a very large corporate Active Directory network. The following took a lot of testing to finally nail down settings that work.
I also run on Windows 2008 Server R2
My web services are in ASP.NET in IIS. For authentication I enabled "Windows Auth" and "ASP.NET Impersonation". Kernel mode is disabled and provider is "Negotiate:Kerboros"
SPNS and Trusted Delegation are setup for an AD account. My AD account looks like sys_myservice (sys_ is just a naming convention at my company)
The Application Pool identity is set to use the sys_myservice
After you make all these changes in your dev env, restart the entire server. For some odd reason this is always necessary when we bring on new servers and configure them.
With this setup my web services access SSAS, SQL Server, and more that use Windows Kerboros auth and all queries are performed correctly under the user's credentials.
The difference in my setup from yours is ASP.NET Impersonation is enabled at the IIS level. I had trouble doing the impersonation in code which is what you are trying to do. If you get code-level impersonation to work with your workflow I would be really interested in seeing you post an update.
Forgot to mention. My services are in a MVC application, I apply a global filter to all Action methods to force the application to authenticate all connections.
public static void RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilterCollection filters)
{
filters.Add(new HandleErrorAttribute());
filters.Add(new System.Web.Mvc.AuthorizeAttribute());
}
and in my web.config system.web section
<authentication mode="Windows" />
<identity impersonate="true" />
I agree that the intermittently 'successful' SSAS instance is suspicious. I wonder if it's really using Kerberos all the time. Could be using a combination of negotiate/NTLM and Kerberos, with one auth method actually working and the other approaching failing. Might be worth another look at the SPN. This link might help: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn194200.aspx
Did you try using Wireshark or any other Network Analysis tools to see anything red happening at that point of failure? Probably its better if you provide more troubleshooting observations from your end.
Also, does your web services has a Load balancer?
Regards,
Sasi.
I have a simple ms sql 2012 express database & a simple VB Express 2010 application as its front end.
Can I simply host my MS SQL database on Azure & update the application to interrogate the hosted database? This would mean, the application would still be local, but the DB would be hosted. My offices are distributed & if we could do this it would save quite a bit of hassle.
Do I need to use a virtual machine, cloud services or straight hosting? Its difficult for me to understand the subtleties each service.
I've had a look at the azure services information and the documentation is pitched a little high for me. I just wanted to know if this is relatively simple thing to do & if anyone has has any pointers to How To's or Noob guides to azure.
It's absolutely possible and in fact, super easy to set up.
Check out this simple step-by-step instruction on how to set up SQL Server DB on Windows Azure - https://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/net/common-tasks/sql-azure-management/
You can even connect to it from your SQL Server Management Studio just like you would connect to a local database or a database on your network.
Ideally - yes, you can change the connection string used by the VB desktop app to reference the Windows Azure SQL Database instance instead of the local database. That said, SQL Database is not 100% compatible with SQL Server. Be sure to check out the differences at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/ff394115.aspx
Can I simply host my MS SQL database on Azure & update the application
to interrogate the hosted database?
Yes, your SQL Azure database is accessible via a connection string, but you have to make sure that you create a firewall rule in SQL Azure to allow your locally hosted or remotely hosted applications to access the database. Everything is turned off by default.
Do I need to use a virtual machine, cloud services or straight
hosting?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but a VM may be overkill, as that gives you basically a place to host a VM in Azure. You control the O/S, patching, etc. A cloud service (a web or worker role) is a little less maintenance heavy as the O/S, patches, updates, etc. are maintained by Azure and you just worry about your application. Straight hosting - are you talking about hosting on 1&1 or GoDaddy or something? If so, that's really no different than your VB app running locally and accessing your Azure database. For this option, just make sure you have your firewall rules set properly, otherwise you won't be able to access the database.
Hopefully this helps. Good luck!
Azure has some specific requirements that need to be met (like every table has to have a Clustered Index), and it does not support some functionality that is available on "normal" SQL Server (like replication, FILESTREAM data, or data compression).
Other than that, as long as your app meets the requirements, there should not be a reason for it not to work on Azure. The majority of the functionality not supported by Azure is most likely out6 of the scope of what a "noob" would implement, so you probably are safe.
However, Azure might be overly expensive for your needs. It might be cheaper to go for hosting the database somewhere. This would mean you would only have to change the connection string of the application to point to the new database server (though there could be additional limitations imposed by your hosting provider).
Good luck with whichever option you end up taking!
we're close to migrating our legacy MS Access app to SQL Server for our internal warehouse management system. Our customers are often asking us for access to the data for e-commerce integration and general reporting. Once the migration is complete I would like to provide open access to the data via web services and odata. However I don't want to host these services as we are on a slow ADSL connection which won't cope with the traffic.
My question is, can I replicate (one-way) to a remote DB hosted by shared-hosting companies such as Hostgator? I see they have shared windows hosting with unlimited MS SQL DBs. Are there any special requirements on the hosted-side? For instance do I need to explicitly set-up replication on hosting db or is it managed on the client-side?
If this is possible then I might be able to run all our web services and reporting apps on the host's servers, and only the replicated data need travel over WAN. What sort of control is there over replication? Such as bandwidth throttling, replication periods etc? For instance when & how often does replication take place?
I'm new to SQL Server in general and some of the topics are a little overwhelming.
Thanks for your help.
You could try setting up transactional replication with a push subscription with the distributor on your side. The relevant bit is how the distribution agent connects to the subscriber. distrib.exe supports both trusted and SQL authentication, so you should be good to go either way.
I was readin this month edition of SQL Server Magazine and in an article about securing Sql Server environment , the author mentioned that developer should try to have the website and the databases run in separate servers for security. I have a shared hosting account and was wondering if it makes sense to buy a second account to move all databases there. Or does it only make sense when using dedicated servers? How would it affect performances on my website?
I use asp.net and have a hosting account with DisountAsp
That article probably doesn't apply to your situation. Running the database on a separate server is a measure to protect against root compromise of the web server hosting machine. I a shared hosting environment the same situation would result in compromising all accounts on that machine anyway. Depending on the particular settings of your hosting, your account database may alreayd be on a separate server.
Besides, with a shared hosting account is very unlikely you'll even be able to query a database from another account.
If you buy a second server, what will it be, a VPS? I imagine you will get more CPU cycles on a VPS with a dedicated database server than a dedicated machine with multiple databases, but who really knows.
Still, your host isn't running websites on their shared database servers, so what's the difference, security wise?
Performance would me my number one driving factor. I mean if someone compromises your web server, unless your connection strings are encrypted, they've got what they need to connect to the DBs.