I am a junior software engineer,I like this site and people in it.So,I want to ask my problems to see your answers and suggestions.Then,please don't mad at me for asking without searching.
My problem is about Distributed database communication(MSSQL Server 2008).In picture,I need a Main Server in center of star topology and other small servers that holding less data than center.Small servers job is normal web service with small database changes.On the other hand,Main Server should communicate with others periodicly(Once in hour,or twice in a day) and gather distrubited data changes in other small databases.
According to this plan,Main server is trustable,secured and backed up.Here is my question:
I plan to communicate on web services level.Main server should have a methods for controlling and checking databases.Is there any tools for this usage?I am looking forward to your suggestions,visions.
my kind regards and thanks in advance.
Take a look at SQL Server Replication. From the description you have provided, it sounds as though a solution using remote Subscribers that utilise Push updates could provide the functionality you require.
In the first instance, and in the interest of broadening your knowledge, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the varying flavours of solution that are available to you through SQL Server Replication technology and study their corresponding architectures.
Related
I am developing a Visual Basic .NET application to be used by the staff of a small training centre nearby. The front-end (UI, menus, etc.) will all be in VB .NET, and there will be a back-end database for storing all of the required data, such as student records and meeting information.
What I would like to know is if it's possible to use a Microsoft Access database for this purpose, and have it accessible by all the staff in the centre (on the same network) at the same time. For example, would I be able to put the database in a shared network folder, and have a copy of the VB application on each PC that would all be able to read/edit/add to the database?
Advice would be appreciated as to how I should proceed. (Note: I would really prefer a method of doing this with MS Access as opposed to suggestions to switch to SQL, as Access was the requested platform)
Thanks in advance.
Yes it can be done and from a programming stand point it is any (much) different then using SQL Server. I think the biggest considerations you have to think about are:
How many simultaneous users do you expect to have using the application?
How secure does the application need to be? Is Access security enough?
How big do I expect the database to become in the next 1 to 5 years?
I think those are you biggest considerations when using Access as a data store and if your answers fall within the specs of Access capabilities then go for it. You can always migrate to SQL Server at a later time if you run into the limits of Access.
You did not mention the version of Access that you are using but a quick Google/Bing search should return specs for every version available.
Yes, but probably not advisable. Despite the disclaimer in your post, you should try to convince the powers to be to look at SQL Server Express instead-- it's free.
But, if Access is the database, all you need to do is have the database reside on a shared directory with full read-write capabilities for all the users. Hopefully when you say "staff of a small training centre", you mean it.
Install the VB.Net program on the client computers and setup the connection string with the path to the database.
Someone else with more recent Microsoft Access experience can probably give better hints on how to reduce the corruption factor. My own experience was to stay away from queries in Access-- have the Access database only for tables and do all of your queries with SQL statements in your client code. My corrupted databases reduced dramatically when I did that, but that was 10-15 years ago.
Back up the database religiously.
Yes, just make sure you chane the extension of your back end access db to your_database_name.be_accdb and it will start logging once the user start writing to it. But I recommend SQL sever
We have an application which needs to interact with 3 different databases
(SQL Server) to fetch the user details and display them on a web page. Is it a good option to use a linked server or should we copy the user details (via some daily job) to the application database?
Using a linked server will give you a round trip delay every time you query the data. If you only query the data once per day or per session this might be acceptable. If however you are issuing many queries to these servers you may find that the performance is so poor that your application is unusable.
You could use SQL replication to push (or pull) the data from each of the servers into a local copy on the application server. This will provide you with much better query performance (no round trip delay) while also ensuring that you have the latest data. There are lots of options with SQL replication you should be able to find something that suits your needs.
For more information on SQL Replication see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151198.aspx
A linked server is only going to allow your databases to talk to each other. If the application is interacting with three discrete databases, then you simply need discrete connections. I would not recommend heavily using the linked servers unless you are moving a lot of data (since picking it up into the application and putting it into another database may take even longer).
I have a client that currently uses a local Advantage Database on their PC along with an application. They are thinking of upscaling their setup to have multiple applications running communicating with a database server i.e/a client-server environment.
They are now considering the best database for this approach. They are looking at the Advantage Database Server product in comparison to SQL Server Express(the application does not warrant a full SQL Server at this stage).
Obviously SQL Server is a more well known product probably with more support but I was hoping you could give me some opinions and thoughts on what you think the best product would be in terms of performance, stability and support.
One thing to note although not directly relevant is that the application is currently written in Delphi and there could be a move to C# to bring it up to date.
The migration from a local Advantage Database to a client/server Advantage database is a very simple process. It simply involves changing the connection properties within the program. There are no other coding changes that need to be done.
Advantage has a great support team and has been in development for over 15 years. The stability and support are at least equal to SQL Server.
Advantage also provides a .NET Data Provider which would allow for C# development.
I have developed for both SQL Server and Advantage. They each have their pros and cons (although now I favor Advantage).
Given your situation, however, this decision appears to be a no-brainer: Advantage Database Server. Why? It's already done!
My Advantage programs run, unmodified, against the same database either locally or remotely. All I change is the connection string. I'm not saying that your customer's code won't have to be changed. I am saying it is likely to be trivial. Compare that to the greater effort involved in switching to a whole new database engine.
In general I'm a SQL Server person all the way. I work with id daily and have for almost ten years, but in your situatuion, it seems silly to consider moving to a new database when there is aclear upgrade path to do what you want using the backend you already have. It would be much less work and far less likely to introduce new bugs to stay within the same database family.
ADS wins hands down. It is maintenance-free. It is extremely reliable. It is extremely fast. It is extremely scalable. SQL is very well supported, and the ADS newsgroups are responsive (answers within hours instead of days on SQL server fora) and well-informed. I have been using ADS since 1991 and it has never gone wrong! My users are incredibly demanding and to be able to turn round solutions within hours instead of days, is both a joy to me and a business incentive to the end users and clients. Deployment is gentle, fast and simple. Platform support is better than SQL server. 64-bit server deployment abounds and is well-grounded, transparent and reliable. 64-bit clients are coming in the next version (10). My experience with ADS is wholly positive, whereas my ventures with SQL server have been fraught with difficulties, idiosyncrasies and workrounds!
I happen to be a support rep for Advantage so when you say "Obviously SQL Server is a more well known product probably with more support" I have to argue a bit.
As Chris stated switching from Advantage Local Server to the the Advantage Remote (client/server) Server is a pretty painless process - they designed it that way.
Install the Advantage Database Server on a machine where the data is located (not a requirement but it's recommended). You can get a free trial here: http://marketing.ianywhere.com/forms/ADS91-30-Day
Within the application there will be TAdsConnection component(s) - change the TAdsConnection.ConnectionType to 'REMOTE' (http://devzone.advantagedatabase.com/dz/webhelp/Advantage9.1/mergedProjects/ade/sec7/connectiontype.htm)
You can specify the path (TAdsConnection.ConnectPath) from the clients in a couple different ways but the recommended is:
\\server:6262\mydata
http://devzone.advantagedatabase.com/dz/webhelp/Advantage9.1/mergedProjects/ade/sec7/connectpath_tadsconnection.htm
Note: 6262 is the port used by default (may need to add an exception to the firewall). Also if your application uses a data dictionary the path would include the name of the .ADD file (e.g. \\server:6262\mydata\mydd.add)
Hope this helps!
I have a bunch of SQL servers which I periodically performs maintainance on (Windows Update patches etc.). Now I want to the database online 24/7 and need to implement one of the high-availability solutions for SQL server.
The solutions needs to be cheap and simple to use.
I have no problems tweaking the connection strings for the clients of the database, so currently I'm looking into database mirroring with manual failovers when taking down a partner instance for patching etc.
Is this the best thing to do or are there other options which doesn't involve setting up a failover cluster?
The servers are virtualized with a fully redundant storage solution.
Any tips are appreciated, thanks in advance!
Mirroring with a PARTNER-server would probably be the cheapest solution (you can skip the PARTNER-server if you plan to switch manually).
Failover requires shared disks (NAS) aswell as cluster-capable Windows-licenses (very expensive).
I'm not sure about replication, or how it differs from mirroring, but my research I did gave the conclusion that mirroring was the one for me. However I don't mind some downtime when doing upgrades, I just keep mirrored instances of the database in case of severe hardware failure.
It might be that replication is for a complete instance of an SQL-server, whilst mirroring is done per database. In my case, I have 2 production servers, that both replicates it's databases to a third, backup-server for disaster-recovery. I think that wouldn't have been possible with replication.
The four high availability solutions I'm aware of are:
Failover cluster
Log shipping
Mirroring
Replication
Log shipping is probably not 24/7, so that leaves three. Serverfault is definitely a better place to ask about their relative merits.
For auto failover I would choose mirroring. You can build a 2nd database connection string into your app and whenever the preferred isnt available it will default to the backup - therefore giving your app 24/7. This has its downsides though, once 'flipped' to the mirror you have to either accept that this is the way it is until another maintenance job requires the mirror to shift back again or you have to manually swap the mirror over.
In order for this to be truly 24/7 you will need to enable auto rather than manual, maybe you will need a witness server to make the decision... There are lots of factors to include in the choice - are you working with servers on different sites, clustering, multiple web/app servers ... ?
As previous answers have suggested, https://serverfault.com/search?q=sql+mirroring will have people who have made just this choice, ready to help you in much more detail
A big benefit of mirroring is that providing the mirror server has no other activity it is license free, the live server license transfers over if the mirror takes over. Full details on SQL licensing pages at microsoft.com
I am building an Asp.net MVC site where I have a fast dedicated server for the web app but the database is stored in a very busy Ms Sql Server used by many other applications.
Also if the web server is very fast, the application response time is slow mainly for the slow response from the db server.
I cannot change the db server as all data entered in the web application needs to arrive there at the end (for backup reasons).
The database is used only from the webapp and I would like to find a cache mechanism where all the data is cached on the web server and the updates are sent to the db asynchronously.
It is not important for me to have an immediate correspondence between read db data and inserted data: think like reading questions on StackOverflow and new inserted questions that are not necessary to show up immediately after insertion).
I thought to build an in between WCF service that would exchange and sync the data between the slow db server and a local one (may be an Sqllite or an SqlExpress one).
What would be the best pattern for this problem?
What is your bottleneck? Reading data or Writing data?
If you are concerning about reading data, using a memory based data caching machanism like memcached would be a performance booster, As of most of the mainstream and biggest web sites doing so. Scaling facebook hi5 with memcached is a good read. Also implementing application side page caches would drop queries made by the application triggering lower db load and better response time. But this will not have much effect on database servers load as your database have some other heavy users.
If writing data is the bottleneck, implementing some kind of asyncronyous middleware storage service seems like a necessity. If you have fast and slow response timed data storage on the frontend server, going with a lightweight database storage like mysql or postgresql (Maybe not that lightweight ;) ) and using your real database as an slave replication server for your site is a good choise for you.
I would do what you are already considering. Use another database for the application and only use the current one for backup-purposes.
I had this problem once, and we decided to go for a combination of data warehousing (i.e. pulling data from the database every once in a while and storing this in a separate read-only database) and message queuing via a Windows service (for the updates.)
This worked surprisingly well, because MSMQ ensured reliable message delivery (updates weren't lost) and the data warehousing made sure that data was available in a local database.
It still will depend on a few factors though. If you have tons of data to transfer to your web application it might take some time to rebuild the warehouse and you might need to consider data replication or transaction log shipping. Also, changes are not visible until the warehouse is rebuilt and the messages are processed.
On the other hand, this solution is scalable and can be relatively easy to implement. (You can use integration services to pull the data to the warehouse for example and use a BL layer for processing changes.)
There are many replication techniques that should give you proper results. By installing a SQL Server instance on the 'web' side of your configuration, you'll have the choice between:
Making snapshot replications from the web side (publisher) to the database-server side (suscriber). You'll need a paid version of SQLServer on the web server. I have never worked on this kind of configuration but it might use a lot of the web server ressources at scheduled synchronization times
Making merge (or transactional if requested) replication between the database-server side (publisher) and web side(suscriber). You can then use the free version of MS-SQL Server and schedule the synchronization process to run according to your tolerance for potential loss of data if the web server goes down.
I wonder if you could improve it adding a MDF file in your Web side instead dealing with the Sever in other IP...
Just add an SQL 2008 Server Express Edition file and try, as long as you don't pass 4Gb of data you will be ok, of course there are more restrictions but, just for the speed of it, why not trying?
You should also consider the network switches involved. If the DB server is talking to a number of web servers then it may be being constrained by the network connection speed. If they are only connected via a 100mb network switch then you may want to look at upgrading that too.
the WCF service would be a very poor engineering solution to this problem - why make your own when you can use the standard SQLServer connectivity mechanisms to ensure data is transferred correctly. Log shipping will send the data across at selected intervals.
This way, you get the fast local sql server, and the data is preserved correctly in the slow backup server.
You should investigate the slow sql server though, the performance problem could be nothing to do with its load, and more to do with the queries and indexes you're asking it to work with.