I need to make a database stored in the cloud for an application. i just need to store and retrieve images from that database to the application. i found Couchbase and i think that's the way to go for me, but im not really sure of how to start.
I suppose that if i want to use Couchbase as a database i need to install it in my computer and it will use my computer as the server. but i need to do that on the cloud, because i don't have a computer that i could use 24/7 as a server. so im not really sure of how i could install Couchbase in the cloud.
I have the vague idea (from reading the AWS page) that some hosting servers out there have the option of using them as a computer where i can install linux or any other operative system, and then install couchbase there, but im not really sure if that's true.
So, if that's the case, is there any cloud (or web) hosting service that you recomend that could do what i need? it would be better if its free, because its a class project, but i don't mind if its paid if it has a 30/60/90 days of free trial. could amazon's AWS or HP's Helion Eucalyptus do the job?
How do i install the Couchbase database in that hosting service?
If using Couchbase in the cloud doesn't work like i think it works, how can i do what i need?
I'm really confused, thank you in advance.
You are correct that you need a server (somewhere) and just install Couchbase server on it by following the Couchbase instructions.
Or you could use the AWS prebuilt version.
Using a database to store images (or any large binary data) is usually a terrible idea. They already invented a database for storing files - it's called a filesystem.
Glib replies aside, you really should consider using the built-in mechanisms you get from cloud providers for storing binary objects; if you're using AWS, then S3 would be my first choice. You get all the benefits of a distributed database: reliability, scalability, etc., but without the unnecessary complexity of using a database for something as simple as storing binary blobs. Some further reading on using S3 for object storage: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/UsingObjects.html
Now, there are some use-cases where it might make sense to use Couchbase for storing images, mostly if you need the high performance that you get from the built-in cache in Couchbase to retrieve the images very quickly. In such a case, here is a short list of steps to get you started:
Sign up for the AWS free tier: https://aws.amazon.com/free/
Get set up for AWS EC2: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/get-set-up-for-amazon-ec2.html
Follow the getting started guide to create an AWS VM instance: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/EC2_GetStarted.html
Install Couchbase: http://developer.couchbase.com/documentation/server/4.0/getting-started/installing.html
Related
I am a new web developer and have some questions regarding MongoDB.
The site I am working on uses references that saved data locally with MongoDB. But after doing some research, I saw something called MongoDB Atlas, which saves data to a cloud. I guess my question is, if I were to host a website would it matter which one I chose to use? Or would I be restricted to Atlas? And why would someone pick one over the other?
MongoDb Atlas is a MongoDb server hosting provided by the same guys who make MongoDb (which means they typically know what they're doing). It's handy to use because everything is automatically configured for you, you get some dashboards, monitoring, backup, upgrades, etc. They have a free layer also (aka M0, it has some important restrictions though, read more at their site). As usual with Cloud offerings, they have good pricing for starters, but these can skyrocket if you're operating at significant scale.
If you choose to install MongoDb server "locally", you would need to configure the cluster yourself (althougth there are plenty of e.g. pre-configured MongoDb docker images out there), configure the backup, arrange monitoring, etc. A lot of work, if you want to do it properly.
Considering above, here is my advice...
Choose MongoDb Atlas when:
You have a small personal project
You're a startup and you believe that you will have tens of thousands users soon - Altas allows bootstrap things fast and for a relatively small cost
You're a medium sized company, you're fine with MongoDb pricing, and you don't expect to grow too much
Choose manual installation of MongoDb when:
You have a small single-server project that is not likely to grow into a multi-server deployment. You can run MongoDb docker in the same server - this is usually a bad practice in general, but it works fine for small workloads. I've used this setup (as part of Meteor Up deployment) and it worked fine with thousands of regular users (depends on your application's usage patterns though).
You're a Unicorn-level startup or bigger
You're building something for internal usage and have restriction of using cloud deployments
Your main servers are not located in the cloud. MongoDb cannot batch requests, so it is very important that your MongoDb server is located in the same datacenter as the backend servers, otherwise latency will kill your performance
Could someone explain the benefits/issues with hosting a database in Kubernetes via a persistent volume claim combined with a storage volume over using an actual cloud database resource?
It's essentially a trade-off: convenience vs control. Take a concrete example: let's say you pay Amazon money to use Athena, which is really just a nicely packaged version of Facebook Presto which AWS kindly operates for you in exchange for $$$. You could run Presto on EKS yourself, but why would you.
Now, let's say you want to or need to use Apache Drill or Apache Impala. Amazon doesn't offer it. Nor does any of the other big public cloud providers at time of writing, as far as I know.
Another thought: what if you want to migrate off of AWS? Your data has gravity as well.
Could someone explain the benefits/issues with hosting a database in Kubernetes ... over using an actual cloud database resource?
As previous excellent answer noted:
It's essentially a trade-off: convenience vs control
In addition to previous example (Athena), take a look at RDS as well and see what you would need to handle yourself (why would you, as said already):
Automatic backups
Multizone deployments
Snapshots
Engine upgrades
Read replicas
and other bells and whistles that come with managed service opposed to self-hosted/managed one.
But there is more to it than just convenience/control that this post I trying to shed light onto:
Kubernetes is adding another layer of abstraction there (pods, services...), and depending on way of handling storage (persistent volumes) you can have two additional considerations:
Access speed (depending on your use case this can be negligent or show stopper).
Storage that you have at hand might not be optimized for relational database type of I/O (or restrict you to schedule pods efficiently). The very same reasons you are not advised to run db on NFS for example.
There are several recent conference talks on kubernetes pointing out that database is big no-no for kubernetes (although this is highly opinionated, we do run average load mysql and postgresql databases in k8s), and large load/fast I/O is somewhat challenge to get right on k8s as opposed to somebody already fine tuned everything for you in managed cloud solution.
In conclusion:
It is all about convenience, controls and capabilities.
I recently landed myself on a project that, like most projects today, relies on multiple relational databases and also, like most projects today, relies on the flexibility and security of cloud computing.
I got into cloud services a little over a month ago and since then I've tackled the basics of most the services that Amazon Web Services offers but have only tested and deployed personal projects.
Now I will be working on a clients server and its a hefty instance, therefore I need to research the best method for developing a pre-existing application on a cloud server. Also bare in mind that the data stored in the databases is also being updated 'live'/dynamically.
I assume it's still good practise to take a local copy to work on? In that case, is the best method to download the whole server using ssh? If so, are there any alternatives? I feel that just downloading the whole server and setting it all back up bit by bit (including the data 'stream') will be very time consuming for such a big application connected to such big databases.
Is there something a little more elegant?
If you are working on a cloud environment you may have developement environment.
You may have a local repository but nothing more than your IDE and your versionning tool.
All your service might be provided by the cloud and the most efficient way to test you code is to do it on a target Image.
personally ,I use cloud foundry or IBM Bluemix with my git repository. I push directly the modifications when i want to test.
you can use cloud services,you dont have to think about server setup/services.you will just need a repository like git.
you can follow below sample link for getting started on configuration on bluemix:
https://hub.jazz.net/tutorials
https://www.facebook.com/ibmswg?ref=hl&ref_type=bookmark
I am developing a mobile app and I am now getting to the stage where I want to put all my back-end server code online for the production version (I actually want to release my app). The back-end consists of 2 parts:
MySQL Database
Actual PHP files for app access.
Looking for a service that is popular, highly scaleable and proven, I came across Amazon Web Services. Now while RDS seemed very straight forward to use for the database part, EC2 was way too complicated for me and I decided on using a managed solution, which puts it out of the question.
Seeing as the simple PHP pages could be moved easily to any service at any time (unlike the database which is a bit harder to move with no downtime), I have decided to use a much cheaper solution for the time being for the PHP pages.
My Question is: Does it make senesce to use Amazon RDS with app hosted on other managed service (rackspace, azure, godaddy etc...)?
While it is technically possible, it depends on your application if it is generally okay to do so. Keep in mind that there will be extra delay in the communication between the RDS instance and your server - and this will happen with every database request you do. You can for example check the network latency with simple tools like ping or traceroute. In general you are looking for the lowest latency possible for database queries.
However if your app hardly does any reads from the database, this could work. If not, I would strongly advise against this. In this case you would either have to install a MySQL database on your managed server or start using EC2.
I am trying to decide which add-on DB to use with my application when I deploy it on AppHarbor. I've two choices: JustOneDB or Cloudant. I am planning to develop a web and mobile application, which will should work with Terabytes of data.
I am searching for the easiest solution to deploy my database, without me needing to partition the DB and the tables. I want a DB that can handle a very large amount of data, but takes the sharding and partitioning architecture building away from the developer.
I also want a solution that will allow me to easily backup my large database and easily restore it.
From what I've read, Cloudant and JustOneDB are the two most popular ones, and those are available as add-ons on AppHarbor for easy deployment.
I need your recommendations on which one I should go with, the cons and pros of each one. I am developing my application in ASP.NET and C# inside Visual Studio.
There's a recent post on the Cloudant blog about using the MyCouch .Net library with Cloudant databases:
https://cloudant.com/blog/how-to-customize-quorum-with-cloudant-using-mycouch/
Cloudant also offers free hosting up to a greater than $5 bill and can work with Apache CouchDB's replication if you want to develop locally and sync it to the cloud for production/deployment. Multi-master replication isn't something many other databases offer.
Best of luck with your application!
MyCouch.Cloudant was just released. Except from CouchDb and Cloudant core feature support the MyCouch.Cloudant NuGet package adds support for Searches. There will be more Cloudant specific features added to this. It's written in C# and supports .Net40, .Net45 and Windows store apps.
You will find more info about MyCouch in the GitHub repo.
You should probably also consider MongoDB and RavenDB.
If you're just starting out, your first concern should probably be to find a database that'll let you quickly get started and build the application you have in mind. When the application becomes a success and actually attracts terabytes of data, you can start worrying about how to scale it. If the application is soundly architected, adapting it to use an appropriate datastore should not be a monumental task.
Comment removed by originator.