We have a requirement for notifying external systems of changes in data in various tables in a SQL Server database. The choice of which data to monitor is somewhat under the control of the user (gets to choose from a list of what we support). The recipients of the notifications may be on a locally connected network (i.e., in the same data center) or they may be remote.
We currently handle this by application code within our data access layer that detects changes and queues notifications on a Service Broker queue which is monitored by a Windows service that performs the actual notification. Not quite real time but close enough.
This has proven to have some maintenance problems so we are looking at using one of the change detection mechanisms that are built into SQL Server. Unfortunately none of the ones I have looked at (I think I looked at them all) seem to fit very well:
Change Data Capture and Change Tracking: Major problem is that they require polling the captured information to determine changes that are to be passed on to recipients. I suspect that will introduce too much overhead.
Notification Services: Essentially uses SQL Server as a web server, which is a horrible waste of licenses. It also requires access through at least two firewalls in the network, which is unacceptable from a security perspective.
Query Notification: Seems the most likely candidate but does not seem to lend itself particularly well to dynamically choosing the data elements to watch. The need to re-register the query after each notification is sent means that we would keep SQL Server busy with managing the registrations
Event Notification: Designed to notify on database or instance level events, not really applicable to data change detection.
About the best idea I have come up with is to use CDC and put insert triggers on the change data tables. The triggers would queue something to a Service Broker queue that would be handled by some other code to perform the notifications. This is essentially what we do now except using a SQL Server feature to do the change detection. I'm not even sure that you can add triggers to those tables but I thought I'd get feedback before spending a lot of time with a POC.
That seems like an awful roundabout way to get the job done. Is there something I have missed that will make the job easier or have I misinterpreted one of these features?
Thanks and I apologize for the length of this question.
Why don't you use update and insert triggers? A trigger can execute clr code, which is explained enter link description here
Related
I have a desktop application which should be notified on any table change. So, I found only two solutions which fits well for my case: SqlDependency and SQLCLR. (I would like to know if there is better in .NET stack) I have built the both structure and made them work. I only able to compare the duration of a s̲i̲n̲gl̲e̲ response from SQL Server to the client.
SqlDependency
Duration: from 100ms to 4 secs
SQLCLR
Duration: from 10ms to 150ms
I would like this structure to be able to deal with high rate notifications*, I have read a few SO and blog posts (eg: here) and also am warned from a colleague that on mass requests SqlDependency may go wrong. Here, MS offers something which I didn't get that may be another solution to my problem.
*:Not all the time but for a season; 50-200 requests per sec on 1-2 servers.
On the basis of a high rate of notifications and in parallel with performance, which of these two should I go on with, or is there another option?
Neither SqlDependency (i.e. Query Notifications) nor SQLCLR (i.e. call a Web Service via a Trigger) is going to work for that volume of traffic (50-200 req per sec). And in fact, both options are quite dangerous at those volumes.
The advice given in both linked pages (the one on SoftwareEngineering.StackExchange.com and the TechNet article) are all much better options. The advice on Best way to get push notifications to server from ms sql database (i.e. custom queue table that is polled every few seconds) is very similar to option #1 of the Planning for Notifications TechNet article (which uses Service Broker to handle the processing of the queue).
I like the queuing idea (fully custom or using Service Broker) the best and have used fully custom queues on highly transactional systems (easily the volume you are anticipating) with much success. The pros and cons between these two options (as I see them, of course) are:
Service Broker
Pro: Existing (and proven) framework (can scale and tied into Transactions)
Con: not always easy to configure or administer / debug, can't easily aggregate 200 individual events in 1 second into a single message (will still be 1 message per each Trigger event)
Fully custom queue
Pro: can aggregate many simultaneous trigger events into single "message" to client (i.e. polling service picks up whatever changes happened since last polling), can make use of Change Tracking / Change Data Capture as the source of "what changed" so you might not need to build a queue table.
Con: Is only as scalable as you are able to make it (might be as good, or better, than Service Broker, but highly dependent on your skill and experience to achieve this), needs thorough testing of edge cases to make sure the queue processing doesn't miss, or double-count, events.
You might be able to combine Service Broker with Change Tracking / Change Detection. If there is an easy-enough way to determine the last change processed (change as noted in Change Tracking / Change Data Capture table(s)), then you can set up a SQL Server Agent job to poll every few seconds, and if you find that new changes have come in, then grab all of those changes into a single message to send to Service Broker.
Some documentation to get you started:
Track Data Changes (covers both Change Tracking and Change Data Capture)
SQL Server Service Broker
I have a CRUD webservice, and have been tasked with trying to figure out a way to ensure that we don't lose data when the database goes down. Everyone is aware that if the database goes down we won't be able to get "reads" but for a specific subset of the operations we want to make sure that we don't lose data.
I've been given the impression that this is something that is covered by services like 0MQ, RabbitMQ, or one of the Microsoft MQ services. Although after a few days of reading and research, I'm not even certain that the messages we're talking about in MQ services include database operations. I am however 100% certain that I can queue up as many hello worlds as I could ever hope for.
If I can use a message queue for adding a layer of protection to the database, I'd lean towards Rabbit (because it appears to persist through crashes) but since the target is a Microsoft SQL server databse, perhaps one of their solutions (such as SQL Service Broker, or MSMQ) is more appropriate.
The real fundamental question that I'm not yet sure of though is whether I'm even playing with the right deck of cards (so to speak).
With the desire for a high-availablity webservice, that continues to function if the database goes down, does it make sense to put a Rabbit MQ instance "between" the webservice and the database? Maybe the right link in the chain is to have RabbitMQ send messages to the webserver?
Or is there some other solution for achieving this? There are a number of lose ideas at the moment around finding a way to roll up weblogs in the event of database outage or something... but we're still in early enough stages that (at least I) have no idea what I'm going to do.
Is message queue the right solution?
Introducing message queuing in between a service and it's database operations is certainly one way of improving service availability. Writing to a local temporary queue in a store-and-forward scenario will always be more available than writing to a remote database server, simply by being a local operation.
Additionally by using queuing you gain greater control over the volume and nature of database traffic your database has to handle at peak. Database writes can be queued, routed, and even committed in a different order.
However, in order to do this you need to be aware that when a database write is performed it is processed off-line. Even under conditions where this happens almost instantaneously, you are losing a benefit that the synchronous nature of your current service gives you, which is that your service consumers can always know if the database write operation is successful or not.
I have written about this subject before here. The user posting the question had similar concerns to you. Whether you do this or not is a decision you have to make based on whether this is something your consumers care about or not.
As for the technology stacks you are thinking of this off-line model is implementable with any of them pretty much, with the possible exception of Service broker, which doesn't integrate well with code (see my answer here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/45690344/569662).
If you're using Windows and unlikely to need to migrate, I would go for MSMQ (which supports durable messaging via transactional queues) as it's lightweight and part of Windows.
What's the best strategy to keep all the clients of a database server synchronized?
The scenario involves a database server and a dynamic number of clients that connect to it, viewing and modifying the data.
I need real-time synchronization of the data across all the clients - if data is added, deleted, or updated, I want all the clients to see the changes in real-time without putting too much strain on the database engine by continuous polling for changes in tables with a couple of million rows.
Now I am using a Firebird database server, but I'm willing to adopt the best technology for the job, so I want to know if there is any kind of already existing framework for this kind of scenario, what database engine does it use and what does it involve?
Firebird has a feature called EVENT that you may be able to use to notify clients of changes to the database. The idea is that when data in a table is changed, a trigger posts an event. Firebird takes care of notifying all clients who have registered an interest in the event by name. Once notified, each client is responsible for refreshing its own data by querying the database.
The client can't get info from the event about the new or old values. This is by design, because there's no way to resolve this with transaction isolation. Nor can your client register for events using wildcards. So you have to design your server-to-client notification pretty broadly, and let the client update to see what exactly changed.
See http://www.firebirdsql.org/doc/whitepapers/events_paper.pdf
You don't mention what client platform or language you're using, so I can't advise on the specific API you would use. I suggest you google for instance "firebird event java" or "firebird event php" or similar, based on the language you're using.
Since you say in a comment that you're using WPF, here's a link to a code sample of some .NET application code registering for notification of an event:
http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php?op=devel&sub=netprovider&id=examples#3
Re your comment: Yes, the Firebird event mechanism is limited in its ability to carry information. This is necessary because any information it might carry could be canceled or rolled back. For instance if a trigger posts an event but then the operation that spawned the trigger violates a constraint, canceling the operation but not the event. So events can only be a kind of "hint" that something of interest may have happened. The other clients need to refresh their data at that time, but they aren't told what to look for. This is at least better than polling.
So you're basically describing a publish/subscribe mechanism -- a message queue. I'm not sure I'd use an RDBMS to implement a message queue. It can be done, but you're basically reinventing the wheel.
Here are a few message queue products that are well-regarded:
Microsoft MSMQ (seems to be part of Windows Professional and Server editions)
RabbitMQ (free open-source)
Apache ActiveMQ (free open-source)
IBM WebSphere MQ (probably overkill in your case)
This means that when one client modifies data in a way that others may need to know about, that client also has to post a message to the message queue. When consumer clients see the message they're interested in, they know to refresh their copy of some data.
SQL Server 2005 and higher support notification based data source caching expiry.
I have an application that consists of a database and several services. One of these services adds information to the database (triggered by a user).
Another service periodically queries the databases for changes and uses the new data as input for processing.
Until now I used a configurable timer that queries the database every 30 seconds or so. I read about Sql 2005 featuring Notification of changes. However, in Sql 2008 this feature is deprecated.
What is the best way of getting notified of changes that occurred in the database directly in code? What are the best practices?
Notification Services was deprecated, but you don't want to use that anyway.
You might consider Service Broker messages in some scenarios; the details depend on your app.
In most cases, you can probably use SqlDependency or SqlCacheDependency. The way they work is that you include a SqlDependency object with your query when you issue it. The query can be a single SELECT or a complex group of commands in a stored procedure.
Sometime later, if another web server or user or web page makes a change to the DB that might cause the results of the previous query to change, then SQL Server will send a notification to all servers that have registered SqlDependency objects. You can either register code to run when those events arrive, or the event can simply clear an entry in the Cache.
Although you need to enable Service Broker to use SqlDependency, you don't need to interact with it explicitly. However, you can also use it as an alternative mechanism; think of it more as a persistent messaging system that guarantees message order and once-only delivery.
The details of how to use these systems are a bit long for a forum post. You can either Google for them, or I also provide examples in my book (Ultra-Fast ASP.NET).
Yes, this blog post explains that Notification Services is now deprecated, and also what the replacements or alternatives are, going forward.
For your purposes - getting notified of changes that occurred in the dataase - it sounds like you want SQL Server Change Tracking. But the notification is a pull model - your app has to do the query on the change table.
I failed to figure out if SqlDependency continues to work with Notification Services deprecated.
There are a number of different ways of tracking changes in the database: either by triggers that maintain temporal structures such as backlogs, tracking logs (aka 'audit tables') or using the change-tracking facilities in SQL 2008 as references in another answer. Irrespective of whatever mechanism you use, you have the problem of notifying your homegrown service of the change. For this, you can use the Service Broker and event-based activation. From what you describe, it seems like having the application wait on an event from the queue.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms171581.aspx
If you don't wish to have the service hang around and sleep on the queue, you can investigate into firing the service into life 'on-demand' by using the external activation mechanism in service broker.
You can use the System.Data.SqlClient.SqlDependency (which works with Service Broker on) to subscribe to changes in a table.
I'm building a mobile application in VB.NET (compact framework), and I'm wondering what the best way to approach the potential offline interactions on the device. Basically, the devices have cellular and 802.11, but may still be offline (where there's poor reception, etc). A driver will scan boxes as they leave his truck, and I want to update the new location - immediately if there's network signal, or queued if it's offline and handled later. It made me think, though, about how to handle offline-ness in general.
Do I cache as much data to the device as I can so that I use it if it's offline - Essentially, each device would have a copy of the (relevant) production data on it? Or is it better to disable certain functionality when it's offline, so as to avoid the headache of synchronization later? I know this is a pretty specific question that depends on my app, but I'm curious to see if others have taken this route.
Do I build the application itself to act as though it's always offline, submitting everything to a local queue of sorts that's owned by a local class (essentially abstracting away the online/offline thing), and then have the class submit things to the server as it can? What about data lookups - how can those be handled in a "Semi-live" fashion?
Or should I have the application attempt to submit requests to the server directly, in real-time, and handle it if it itself request fails? I can see a potential problem of making the user wait for the timeout, but is this the most reliable way to do it?
I'm not looking for a specific solution, but really just stories of how developers accomplish this with the smoothest user experience possible, with a link to a how-to or heres-what-to-consider or something like that. Thanks for your pointers on this!
We can't give you a definitive answer because there is no "right" answer that fits all usage scenarios. For example if you're using SQL Server on the back end and SQL CE locally, you could always set up merge replication and have the data engine handle all of this for you. That's pretty clean. Using the offline application block might solve it. Using store and forward might be an option.
You could store locally and then roll your own synchronization with a direct connection, web service of WCF service used when a network is detected. You could use MSMQ for delivery.
What you have to think about is not what the "right" way is, but how your implementation will affect application usability. If you disable features due to lack of connectivity, is the app still usable? If you have stale data, is that a problem? Maybe some critical data needs to be transferred when you have GSM/GPRS (which typically isn't free) and more would be done when you have 802.11. Maybe you can run all day with lookup tables pulled down in the morning and upload only transactions, with the device tracking what changes it's made.
Basically it really depends on how it's used, the nature of the data, the importance of data transactions between fielded devices, the effect of data latency, and probably other factors I can't think of offhand.
So the first step is to determine how the app needs to be used, then determine the infrastructure and architecture to provide the connectivity and data access required.
I haven't used it myself, but have you looked into the "store and forward" capabilities of the CF? It may suit your needs. I believe it uses an Exchange mailbox as a message queue to send SOAP packets to and from the device.
The best way to approach this is to always work offline, then use message queues to handle sending changes to and from the device. When the driver marks something as delivered, for example, update the item as delivered in your local store and also place a message in an outgoing queue to tell the server it's been delivered. When the connection is up, send any queued items back to the server and get any messages that have been queued up from the server.