After reading through some articles on LightSwitch, I'm left wondering what prevents a LightSwitch user creating queries that over load the data-source, mainly SQL databases.
From my initial understanding, a LightSwitch user is not a developer or DB admin, and may little understanding of the impact a seemingly simple query can have on a multi-user database.
Does LightSwitch have built in governance, caching etc, is it safe to let the user have access to the last years sales data?
I don't believe there is anything built into LightSwitch for this, however this should be able to be handled on the DB server.
If you're running SQL Server 2008 they've got resource governance built in.
MSDN SQL 2008 Resource Governance
Specific example
Related
We have an Access 2016 database with lots of tables, forms and reports from a client. The client would like other people to access the data in this database but doesn't want to spend the money to convert the forms and reports to a website. They would rather have Access 2016 as a frontend with it's forms and reports and store the data in a centralized location. The issue is the users who will access this data won't be on the same LAN or network.
The solution I came up with was to use SQL Azure as the database backend and keep the forms and reports in the Access 2016 database frontend. Can anyone think of an alternative? Does Microsoft have some kind of online hosting with Office 365? I have nothing at all against SQL Server and use it frequently but just don't want to go through the effort of upsizing the database when a simpler solution existed.
You can certainly place the back end on SQL Azure. However given that a typical internet connection is about 100 times slower, then MUCH effort is required to optimize the application. So you need significant experience on how to optimize an Access application to work with SQL server. This setup is thus doable, but will take significant amounts of work to achieve decent performance.
Another possible solution is to use a SharePoint or office 365 back end (which supports SharePoint tables). This setup only works well if table’s sizes are in general below 5000 records. You also have to ensure all table relations are standard auto number PK and child tables use a standard long number column to relate back to the parent table.
Likely the best solution is to setup a server and run remote desktop. This gives the best performance, and the end users don’t need to install access nor your front end part.
I explain in detail the “slowness” with using SQL server over the internet in this article of mine along with some suggestions and possible solutions.
http://www.kallal.ca//Wan/Wans.html
Can someone please explain me what I need to do in order to make my websites available all the time using Microsoft azure.
At the moment I have just one dedicated server with IIS (running 7 websites) and SQL Server - all on one machine. Beside this I use Redis-lab as cloud service for hosting Redis cache.
I'm more or less happy how this works, but in case that something happens with server, or I need to restart it of course my website goes down which is not good of course.
So in order to make mitigate some of risks what exactly I need to do?
Am I correct in flowing thinking?
Option 1 - I need one more machine in an availability set with load balancer. This solution is not great as one server will still have an instance of SQL Server running = if that server goes down, websites on the second server will not work as the database is down
Option 2 - I need 3 more servers. 2 for IIS in a load balanced environment and 2 for SQL Server - which is super expensive solution.
Option 3 - 2 more servers. Where existing server and the new one will be for IIS (load balanced) + 3rd server with database. The database server will be write only. Both IIS severs will have an instance of ms SQL running in readonly mode => content from database server will be replicated to their databases. In this scenario if SQL Server goes down websites will still work as they will pull data from their own read only databases
Are there any other options?
Thanks
Regarding other options have you considered the option of moving the databases to Azure SQL which would give you redundancy out of the box? Similarly if you can move the websites to Azure App Service you can get the same for the sites.
Yes, you definitely need the availability set for your deployment. Please, take a look at Azure availability checklist written by Microsoft.
I would propose you to migrate your web apps to the Azure Web Apps + set up the SQL Server deployment according to the availability best practices. Migrating them to the web apps as a service will eliminate some administrative tasks and the problem of placing all of the eggs in the same basket. You can place them to the one Web Apps Pricing Plan and change that plan when needed, for example, from more powerful resources to least powerful (or from the paid one to the free one for all of your sites).
If SQL Azure is not a solution for you, and (from my point of view) the data source is more critical than frontent/.../, it is highly recommended to deploy SQL Sever according to the tutorials provided above.
Im looking through all the options in Visual Studio for database integratiion with Winforms apps. I am just overwhelmed by the options. It's not that I can't read about each of them on MSDN which I have done, it's that most of them seem adequate. Basically I have a fairly large collection of financial data which I need to stuff into a db an run queries on it from a Windows Form. Can someone briefly advice which of Service Based Databas, ADO.Net and all it's varients, Local Database, SQL Server Compact 4.0 Local Databace, Service Based Database etc would be suited to the task? Or just generally if any of them are NOT suited at all?
I would use SQL Server Express, which is a free version of SQL Server.
Why? it has very good tools and will grow and scale-up very easily, whether you wish to add more (large volumes) of data, or support multiple front-ends - ASP.NET, mobile, Winforms, MVC, MS Access.
You may wish to connect to your SQL Server back-end with Access to run ad-hoc queries and generate quick reports off of them and at the same time keep expose your data through services via .NET. SQL Server will support all these front-ends at the same time.
All of these are variants of SQL Server. Just create the database in whatever manner you like, and use Entity Framework (or at worse, classic ADO.NET) to interact with it.
Lacking other specific requirements and assuming your data is less than the 10GB limit for the free SQL Server 2010 Express. If you find that you need to store more than 10GB, or evolve to use other features of SQL Server, the upgrade path is very straightforward.
Entity Framework is generally a very productive way to access the database from WinForms. If you're not familiar with it, I would recommend setting aside some time to learn to use it if you can. You will quickly make up the time invested in productivity gains.
I am developing a simple WPF Application that requires a database. My question is, can I use an online database to run with my application. That is, can my WPF application access an online database? If yes, then how do I do it? Will the conventional way of accessing the SQL Server work? Also, is there any free online database website available that I can use. I do not need a lot of space. Just need to store 9-10 tables, and about 15-20 stored procedures.
Take a look at "SQL AZURE". The call it Database as Service: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/dataservices/default.aspx
Additionally you could look at Amazon SimpleDB http://aws.amazon.com/simpledb/.
I frequently develop small internet applications using ASP.NET and SQL Server 2005. My databases are always only accessed by one application through an ASP.NET web service or something similar.
When I'm developing an application and moving a database back and forth between my development computer (SQLExpress 2008) and hosted server (SQL Server 2005) invariably I end up getting a hodgepodge of owners/roles/schemas/logins etc that seem to crop up and take control of various pieces of the database.
I only know enough about SQL Server to be dangerous, and I just want to get databases designed, but I invariably have to change the db and end up getting various permissions errors (for example when trying to open a diagram after transferring a db).
Is there a way to simply tell SQL Server Management Studio "Hey, I'm the only guy who's going to use this stupid db, so just let me do it?"
Like some command that sets all of these pieces to 'dbo' or something like that?
I am assuming you are using Windows. Make sure you are connecting to SQL with Windows authentication and give your account Sysadmin permissions. Now everything you create (Create Table tablename, Create View viewname) will automatically have dbo as the owner.
Unfortunatly there is a couple of easy answers to your question, but you are probably not going to like them because they will require you to invest in SQL Server skills.
The first tool you should look at is Visual Studio 2008 Database Developer Edition. This version has management tools you are looking for to manage schemas, users, ... I thinks this is now included with Visual Studio 2008 Development Edition
The second approach is to embrace SQL Server administration and get comfertable with writting DDL scripts. The goal is to get to the point where you can deploy changes to SQL Server in a predicatble manner from your development enviornment to test and ultimatly to production.
The crux of the problem is that you move back and forth the database itself. Databases are surprisingly tightly coupled to their host SQL instance, by the login to user mapping and by other settings as well, like encryption keys, usage of msdb procedures and maintenance plans among other. You could minimize some of the impact by carefully using exlclusively SQL Authentication, but that won't eliminate the problem completely. The real solution is that you should have a deployment script and apply changes to your production database(s) via executing T-SQL script(s) that you have previously tested on your development db, not by moving a db 'back and forth'.
I create all objects specifically specifying I want them created as dbo.
so to create a proc I do
Create Procedure dbo.myprocname