I've created a software that is supposed to synchronize data between two databases in SQL Server. The program is tested as much as I was able to do so while having a limited amount of data and limited time. Now I need to make it run and I want to play that safe.
What would be the best approach to be able to recover if something goes wrong and database gets corrupted? (meaning not usable by the original program)
I know I can backup both databases each time I perform the sync. I also know that I could do point in time recovery.
Are there any other options? Is it possible to rollback only the changes made by the sync service? (both databases are going to be used by other software)
You probably have, but I suggest investigating the backup and recovery options available in SQL Server. Since you have no spec, you don't know how the system is going to behave against these changes, leaving you with a higher likelihood of problems. For this reason (and many other obvious reasons) I would want to have solid SQL backups/recovery process in place. Unfortunately Express isn't very good in automating this area, but you can run them manually before the sync.
At the very least, make everything transactional; a failure in your program should not leave the databases in a partially sync'd state.
Too bad you don't have a full version of SQL Server... then you might be able to use something like replication services and eliminate this program altogether? ;)
Related
I have a client who wants to develop an application using Access 2007. For the stated short term purposes, Access 2007 fits their specification:
approx 30K master records
6 or fewer users
department file server
The issue is that the client is very technically naive and isn't at all aware of the trouble they might get into if the scope increases. The application will be storing master data that will be uploaded into an enterprise system and I fear that six months from now I'll be hearing any of the following issues:
we need to keep all of the historical data (suddenly we have 3M rows)
we need fine grained and airtight user level security
we keep getting corrupt data records
our database wasn't backed up for three months (because a user kept it open)
I've done a few small Access databases but I'm a SQL server dev by trade and I know how to use it to solve most any problem. I don't know if my client should be worried about their choice of technology - and if they should, I'm not 100% sure how best to communicate the risks to them.
I fear that six months from now I'll be hearing any of the following issues:
we need to keep all of the historical data (suddenly we have 3M
rows)
Three million rows isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for a Jet/ACE data store. Depends on amount of data in each of those rows.
we need fine grained and airtight user level security
This is a compelling reason to move data storage to client-server db.
we keep getting corrupt data records
That should almost never happen with a proper Access implementation, contrary to claims by Access bigots. It will happen if you're running across an unreliable network. But, if that's your client's situation, you should either fix the network problems or ditch Access for data storage.
our database wasn't backed up for three months (because a user kept
it open)
You can build on Arvin Meyer's KickEmOff approach. But with <= 6 users currently, it might be easier to deal with the situation without code for now. Just ask them to close out long enough for the backup. You could have your automated backup routine create a notice when its attempt fails, so this shouldn't have to be a constant thing.
In any case, suggest you design the current application so that an eventual migration to SQL Server will be less troublesome. Avoid Access-specific features: hyperlink data type; lookup fields; multi-value fields; attachment fields; and so forth. Since you're experienced with SQL Server, it should be fairly easy to create a test SQL Server database and link a copy of your Access front-end to it. Test periodically as you develop the Access front-end. Then you look like a hero when the client recognizes a need to move the data storage to SQL Server.
I'm in a mixed Sql/Access dev shop and understand your concerns, but the sheer usability of Access often wins out for users. Where we have mission critical data and need to use Access we simply used Linked tables - best of both worlds, Sql handles Security, Backups etc and Access provides the front end.
To me, the obvious answer is to develop an Access front end to an Access back end for the initial implementation, but doing the development with upsizing the back end to SQL Server in mind.
That means just applying commonsense to what you do, as #HansUp suggests (i.e., not using Access-specific functionality), and designing your data retrieval so that it will work well with a server back end.
If, on the other hand, either the increased amount of data or the security issues are actually not just remote possibilities but likely to become issues during the lifetime of the app, I'd go with a SQL Server back end from the beginning. But your description of the situation really doesn't sound like that's the case at all.
Certainly the corruption and backup concerns are completely misplaced. Proper maintenance and backup has to be in place, and the operating environment has to be stable, but all of that applies to any database engine, not just to Jet/ACE.
Explain to your client that you will have to charge much more money to create, implement, maintain, repair and later upsize the application. Explain that they will not save money in the long run and that they will be better off if they go ahead and allow you to properly prepare now. That being said, I agree with #HansUp suggestions. You can give the customer what they want and still prepare for the likely eventualities. Think of it as job security.
There are Price and GUI advantages to using Access over SQL that for the non-technical people are really attractive. I think given your scenario then maybe the "customer" is right - aren't they always!
However, your 4 "following issues" really answer your own question.
If your user is technically naive then there is not much point in using technical language. If at all possible when l speak to users the language and terms I used are the same my users understand. Also compliment your users when possible it makes them feel good and make you look good in their eyes. Here's some suggested ideas.
Using Access 2007 is an excellent idea, easy to develop with and change to met your needs. However there are a number of very strong technical reasons for using another free tool, namely SQL express to store the data.
Why use SQL express?
Its free !
Security of the data will be a very high priority (even if client has not mentioned this use this as a reason). Point out how easy it would be to steal all the data from Access compared to SQL server. See this book for excellent detail regarding Access security. The user level security for SQL server is much simpler and easier with SQL server, and will cost less money to implement, as well as being more secure.
Backing up of data. In order to back up the access database no one can be using the database or even connected to the database. With SQL server can back it up at any time. Less down time or in other words greater productivity using this other FREE tool.
Data corruption. One issue with Access database, is corruption of the database. What does this mean? It is possible to lose up to a days worth of work, with SQL server this issue is much very much less likely to occur. There are even situations where it is not possible to recover the database. Hence this loss of productivity can be minimised if using SQL server.
When this tool gains greater recognition and other departments wish to use it, as no doubt it will. Moving to a larger enterprise database system will be much easier and less costly to develop, if you use SQL server express as the data store.
The above are just suggestions, based on the assumption you user is wishing to expend as little money as possible, and the limitations / resources you put in your posting.
I also appreciate that not every one will agree with what l have put in the suggestions above. They are not meant as detailed technical points, more as suggested ways of persuading a technically naive client to consider using SQL server express as the back end db for an Access db used for a departmental application
I am trying to get the content of one MSSQL database to a second MSSQL database. There is no conflict management required, no schema updating. It is just a plain copy and replace data. The data of the destination database would be overwritten, in case somebody would have had changed something there.
Obviously, there are many ways to do that
SQL Server Replication: Well established, but using old protocols. Besides that, a lot of developers keep telling me that the devil is in the details and the replication might not always work as expected and that is this best choice for an administrator, but not for a developer.
MS Sync Framework: MSF is said to be the cool, new technology. Yes, it is this new stuff, you love to get, because it sounds so innovative. There is the generic approach for synchronisation, this sounds like: Learn one technology and how to integrate data source, you will never have to learn how to develop syncing again. But on the other hand, you can read that the main usage scenario seems to be to synchronize MSSQL Compact databases with MSSQL.
SQL Server Integration Services: This sounds like an emergency plannable solution. In case the firewall is not working, we have a package that can be executed again and again... until the firewall drops down or the authentication is fixed.
Brute Force copy and replace of database files: Probably not the best choice.
Of course, when looking on the Microsoft websites, I read that every technology (apart from brute force of course) is said to be a solid solution that can be applied in many scenarios. But that is, of course, not the stuff I wanted to hear.
So what is your opinion about this? Which technology would you suggest.
Thank you!
Stefan
The easiest mechanism is log shipping. The primary server can put the log backups on any UNC path, and then you can use any file sync tools to manage getting the logs from one server to another. The subscriber just automatically restores any transaction log backups it finds in its local folder. This automatically handles not just data, but schema changes too.
The subscriber will be read-only, but that's exactly what you want - otherwise, if someone can update records on the subscriber, you're going to be in a world of hurt.
I'd add two techniques to your list.
Write T-SQL scripts to INSERT...SELECT the data directly
Create a full backup of the database and restore it onto the new server
If it's a big database and you're not going to be doing this too often, then I'd go for the backup and restore option. It does most of the work for you and is guaranteed to copy all the objects.
I've not heard of anyone using Sync Framework, so I'd be interested to hear if anyone has used it successfully.
Ok, the scenario is... two servers, on completely different parts of the internet.
The sql 2008 database just needs to get data updates and schema changes. It doesn't need to send anything to the 2005 database. Basically just suck data and schema as efficiently as possible automatically as a scheduled task.
The database is quite huge.... but the changes per day are probablly around 20/30 megabytes of data/
I can't run any of the inbuilt replication on the 2005 database.
I've had a wee look at the Sync Framework, I think that might do what I want, but seems a bit painful and requires a bit of work to get going. I'm wondering if there is tooling out there to make this easier?
or?? not quite sure what my options are.
I can't run any of the inbuilt
replication on the 2005 database.
Any reason for this restriction? Replication is the way to solve your problem. W/o a replication infrastructure you simply won't be able to detect data changes, nor schema changes. There are only two ways to detect the changes: either via triggers and tracking tables (and that is Merge Replication) or via the database log (and that is Transactional Replication).
Sync Framework itself, if it would be used, would require either Change Tracking or Change Data Capture. But these are 2008 specific technologies and they're really nothing else but replication in disguise (they use the very same infrastructure used by Merge and respectively Transactional Replication).
Even if you want to roll your own, you'll find out quickly that shipping the changes over is the trivial part, eg. using Service Broker for reliable delivery semantics. But the Real hard problem is detecting the changes, and that is hard. Diff-ing a 'quite huge' database over the internet to detect changes is just not going to work. So relying on the built-in infrastructure to detect changes, namely the two forms of Replication, is just the obvious solution.
Could you automate RedGate's SQL Compare and/or SQL Data Compare? http://www.red-gate.com/products/SQL_Compare/index.htm ... you could at least try that out with the 14-day trial and see if it is worth the investment. Much cheaper than tooling it yourself, IMHO.
maybe these questions help you:
Microsoft Sync Framework Or Replication
SQL Server Data Archive Solution
Is there a way to replicate some data not all data in db by sql server replication?
you can make an application that generate a script from your changed data in your favorite period and then run this script in your target server.
I am working for a company and I need to create a program really fast. My program will run with 100 users and they will make approximately 100 transactions each per day. As I am under time pressure, and various other constraints it is not possible to set up a proper database running on a server. I am therefore looking for alternatives that have some sort of transaction support without running on a server. I believe this could be solved using Microsoft Access, which is an alright solution, though I believe I will run into locking problems. Isn't is so that a whole table is locked as soon as one user attempts to read from it? Anyways... My question is what other alternatives there are.
The real answer is likely to vary significantly depending on what quantity of data is being talked about here.
I'd take a look at SQLite. It supports transactions, triggers, etc and is supported by things like NHibernate which may make your database mapping life much easier.
Check out SQLite.
Is sqlite a proper solution? Not sure how remote storage is supported, though. That's not a common feature.
You could look into SQL CE, it's a very good local database from Microsoft.
There are many options. As others have stated, setting up and running with SQLLite, SQL Server Express, or any of a number of other small, light, and free databases.
Assuming you need this today, I would go with the one you know most about. Further, I would stay away from anything resembling Access. If you don't already have experience in using it for multi user access, you are going to burn too much time figuring out the problems.
That said, I'd lean towards SQL Server express first. It's free and can scale up to full sql server with no code changes.
I believe this could be solved using Microsoft Access, which is an alright solution, though I believe I will run into locking problems.
I'd say locking and queuing would be the least of your worries. With 100 concurrent users, Access will probably corrupt itself in minutes. With 10k+ records/day, it will likely bog down your entire network in a month or so.
As I am under time pressure, and various other constraints it is not possible to set up a proper database running on a server.
You can bring a database server up in an hour. Much less time than you'll spend hacking away at Access. There's open-source virtual machine images, MSSQL Express, hosted solutions, etc. Time and cost should be non-issues.
About the only thing I can think of that would have you using Access is the Forms support (which can be hooked to MSSQL Server) or DBA maintenance. Frankly, though, at 100 users Access will take so much babysitting that you can afford a hosted SQL instance and still come out ahead.
I think that Firebird can be a very good alternative.
Firebird is available in embedded and can also work with server. It have many features.
The backup and restore process of a large database or collection of databases on sql server is very important for disaster & recovery purposes. However, I have not found a robust solution that will guarantee the whole process is as efficient as possible, 100% reliable and easily maintainable and configurable accross multiple servers.
Microsft's Maintenance Plans doesn't seem to be sufficient. The best solution I have used is one that I created manually using many jobs with many steps per database running on the source server (backup) and destination server (restore). The jobs use stored procedures to do the backup, copying & restoring. This runs once a day (full backup/restore) and intraday every 5 mins (transaction log shipping).
Although my current process works and reports any job failures via email, I know the whole process isn't very reliable and cannot be easily maintained/configured on all our servers by a non-DBA without having in-depth knowledge of the process.
I would like to know if others have this same backup/restore process and how others overcome this issue.
I've used a similar step to keep dev/test/QA databases 'zero-stepped' on a nightly basis for developers and QA folks to use.
Documentation is the key - if you want to remove what Scott Hanselman calls 'bus factor' (i.e. the danger that the creator of the system will get hit by a bus and everything starts to suck).
That said, for normal database backups and disaster recovery plans, I've found that SQL Server Maintenance Plans work out pretty well. As long as you include:
1) Decent documentation
2) Routine testing.
I've outlined some of the ways to go about doing that (for anyone drawn to this question looking for an example of how to go about creating a disaster recovery plan):
SQL Server Backup Best Practices (Free Tutorial/Video)
The key part of your question is the ability for the backup solution to be managed by a non-DBA. Any native SQL Server answer like backup scripts isn't going to meet that need, because backup scripts require T-SQL knowledge.
Because of that, you want to look toward third-party solutions like the ones Mitch Wheat mentioned. I work for Quest (the makers of LiteSpeed) so of course I'm partial to that one - it's easy to show to non-DBAs. Before I left my last company, I had a ten minute session to show the sysadmins and developers how the LiteSpeed console worked, and that was that. They haven't called since.
Another approach is using the same backup software that the rest of your shop uses. TSM, Veritas, Backup Exec and Microsoft DPM all have SQL Server agents that let your Windows admins manage the backup process with varying degrees of ease-of-use. If you really want a non-DBA to manage it, this is probably the most dead-easy way to do it, although you sacrifice a lot of performance that the SQL-specific backup tools give you.
I am doing precisely the same thing and have various issues semi regularly even with this process.
How do you handle the spacing between copying the file from Server A to Server B and restoring the transactional backup on Server B.
Every once in a while the transaction backup is larger than normal and takes a longer time to copy. The restore job then gets an operating system error that the file is in use.
This is not such a big deal since the file is automatically applied the next time around however it would be nicer to have a more elegant solution in general and one that specifically fixes this issue.