I'm planing to create an accounting application in asp.net mvc.
Each user will pay monthly subscription, I'll provide daily backups, etc.
I don't know which strategy to choose:
To use SQL CE4 and run application in separate virtual directory for each user.
To put everything in a single SQL Server database
What are cons and pros of these two options?
If I choose option 2, I'll have to write more logic inside code. I must prevent users from seeing things they should not see (more trips to database).
The two most important things are:
General performance of the system
Ability to easily create backups for separate users.
I expect between 20 and 30 users.
Any suggestion will be appreciated.
I'd go for option 2 as always. I come from an intense financial integration background so option 2 (to me at least) is best.
There are no con's when considering the use of data. There are no more round trips than there would be with option 1.
Performance of the system is generally left up to the programmer. If you write shitty code you can expect terrible performance. Option 2 provides the easiest backup option as you only have to worry about 1 database. There's no need to consider that for separate users at all if you go with 1 database.
RE: the round trip's for users (or more "logic" in your code to handle that), how hard is it to add "Where userID = x" ?
You should be separating your .net code with stored procedures anyway so writing from the ground up shouldn't have anymore (or even less) round trips/file access issues than you would have with option 1.
You are probably not going to realistically be able to use SQL Server's backup feature if you go for a multi-tenant design in a single database, because the unit of backup is not going to be fine enough to back up each user's data individually. You can use partitions and filegroups and backup only filegroups, but the partition feature is not exactly easy to administer, and would probably not be good for this purpose.
If you are expecting to use SQL Server's backup and restore capability independently for users (which it sounds like from your comment), you probably need to have them in separate databases.
Having said that, I would re-think that requirement (think about implementing selective export/import), because a multi-tenant architecture is a lot easier to deal with overall.
Related
I am in process of designing my CMS that I am about to create. I was thinking about the database and how I want to go by approaching it.
Do you think its best to create 1 master database for all my clients websites? or Should I have 1 database per site?
What is the benefits and negatives on both approaches? I am always thinking about the future so I was thinking about implementing memcache or APC cache to the project, to offer an option to my client.
Just trying to learn the best practices and what other developers apporach would be
I've run both. My business chooses to separate client-specific data into separate tables so that if one happens to go corrupt, not all are taken down. In an ideal world this might never happen, but murphy's law....It does seem very easy to find things with them separated. You will know with 100% certainty that one client's content will never show up on another's page.
If you do go down that route, be prepared to create scripts that build and configure databases for you. There's nothing fun about building a great system and having demand for it, only to spend your time manually setting up DB's and installs all day long. Also, setting db names is one additional step that's not part of using a single db table--it's a headache that will repeat itself seemingly over and over again.
Develop the single master DB. It will take a small amount of additional effort and add a little bit more complexity to the database design, but will give you a few nice features. The biggest is being able to share data between sites.
Designing for a master database means that you have the option to combine sites when it makes sense, but also lets you install a master per site. Best of both worlds.
It depends greatly upon the amount of customization each client will require. If you forsee clients asking for many one-off features specific to their deployment, separate databases based off of a single core structure might make sense. I would highly recommend trying to make any customizations usable by all clients though, and keep all structure defined in one place/database instead of duplicating it across multiple databases. By using one database, you make updating the structure straightforward and the implementation consistent across all sites so they can all use the same CMS code.
How many databases are needed for a social website? I have my tech team working on developing a social site but all their tables are in 1 database. I wanted to create separate table sets for user data, temporary tables, etc and thinking maybe have one separate database only for critical data, etc but I am not a tech person and now sure how this works? The site is going to be a local reviews website.
This is what happens when management tries to make tech decisions...
The simple answer, as always, is as few as possible.
The slightly more complicated answer is that once your begin to push the limits of your server and begin to think about multiple servers with master/slave replication then your may want your frequent write tables separated from your seldom write tables which will lower the master-slave update requirements.
If you start using seperate databases you can also run into an with you backup / restore strategy. If you have 5 databases and backup all five, what happens when you need to restore one of them, do you then need to restore all five?
I would opt for the fewest number of databases.
The reason you would want to have multiple databases is for scaling-out to multiple machines. In the context of a "social application" where large volume / high availability is a concern. If you anticipate the need to scale out to multiple machines to handle high volumes then the breakout of tables should be those that logically need to stay together.
So, for example, maybe you want to keep tables related to a specific subject area (maybe status updates) together in one database and other tables that are related to a different subject area (let's say user's picture libraries) together in a different database.
There are logical and performance reasons to keep tables in separate physical or logical databases.
What is the reason that you want it in different databases?
You could just put all tables in one database without a problem, even with for example multiple installations of an open source package. In that case you can use table prefixes.
Unless you are developing a really BIG website, one database is the way to proceed (by the way, did you consider the possible issues that may raise when working with various databases?).
If you are worried about performance, you can always configure different tablespaces on several storage devices in order to improve timings.
If you are worried about security, just increase it (better passwords, no direct root login, no port forwarding, avoid tunneling, etc.)
I am not a tech person only doing the functional analysis but I own the project so I need to oversee the tech team. My reason to have multiple database is security and performance.
Since this is going to be a new startup, there is no money to invest into strong security or getting the database designed flawless. Plus there are currently no backup policies in place so:
1) I want to separate critical data like user password/basic profile info, then separate out user media (photos they upload on their profile) and then the user content. Then separate out the system content. Current design is to have to layers of tables: Master tables for entire system and module tables for each individual module.
2) Performance: There are a lot of modules being designed and this is a data intensive social site with lots of reporting / analytic being builtin so lots of read/writes. Maybe better to distribute load across database based on purpose?
Since there isn't much funding hence I want to get it right the first time with my investment so the database can scale & work well until revenue comes in to actually invest in getting it right. Ofcourse that could be maybe 6 months away and say a million users away too.
Oh & there is plan to add staging/production mode also so seperate or same database?
You'll be fine sticking with using one database for now. Your developers can isolate/seperate application data by making use of database schema. Working with multiple databases can quickly become a journey through a world of pain and is to be avoided unless its absolutely crucial.
We are designing a new version of our existing product on a new schema.
Its an internal web application with possibly 100 concurrent users (max)This will run on a SQL Server 2008 database.
On of the discussion items recently is whether we should have a single database of split the database for performance reasons across 2 separate databases.
The database could grow anywhere from 50-100GB over 5 years.
We are Developers and not DBAs so it would be nice to get some general guidance.
[I know the answer is not simple as it depends on the schema, archiving policy, amount of data etc. ]
Option 1 Single Main Database
[This is my preferred option].
The plan would be to have all the tables in a single database and possibly to use file groups and partitioning to separate the data if required across multiple disks. [Use schema if appropriate]. This should deal with the performance concerns
One of the comments wrt this was that the a single server instance would still be processing this data so there would still be a processing bottle neck.
For reporting we could have a separate reporting DB but this is still being discussed.
Option 2 Split the database into 2 separate databases
DB1 - Customers, Accounts, Customer resources etc
DB2 - This would contain the bulk of the data [i.e. Vehicle tracking data, financial transaction tables etc].
These tables would typically contain a lot of data. [It could reside on a separate server if required]
This plan would involve keeping the main data in a smaller database [DB1] and retaining the [mainly] read only transaction type data in a separate DB [DB2]. The UI would mainly read from DB1 and thus be more responsive.
[I'm aware that this option makes it harder for Referential Integrity to be enforced.]
Points for consideration
As we are at the design stage we can at least make proper use of indexes to deal performance issues so thats why option 1 to me is attractive and its more of a standard approach.
For both options we are considering implementing an archiving database.
Apologies for the long Question. In summary the question is 1 DB or 2?
Thanks in advance,
Liam
Option 1 in my opinion is the way to go.
CPU is very unlikely to be your bottleneck with 100 concurrent users providing your workload. You could acquire a single multi-socket server with additional CPU capacity available via hot swap technology to offer room to grow should you wish. Dependent on your availability requirements you could also consider using a Clustering solution to allow for swapping in more processing CPU resource by forced fail over to another node.
The performance of your disk subsystem is going to be your biggest concern. Your design decisions will be influenced by the storage solution you use, which I assume will be SAN technology.
As a minimum you will want to place your LOG(RAID 1) and DATA files(RAID 10 or 5 dependent on workload) on separate LUNS.
Dependent on your table access you may wish to consider placing different Filegroups on separate LUN's. Partitioning your table data could prove advantageous to you but only for large tables.
50 to 100GB and 100 users is a pretty small database by most standards today. Don't over engineer your solution by trying to solve problems that you haven't even seen yet. Splitting it into two databases, especially on two different servers will create a mountain of headaches that you're better off without. Concentrate your efforts on creating a useful product instead.
I agree to the other comments stating that between 50 and 100GB is small these days. I'd also agree that you shouldn't overengineer.
But, if there is a obvious (or not so obvious) logical separation between the entities you store (like you say, one being read-write and the other parts mainly read-only), I'd still split it in different dbs. At least I would design it in a way I could easily factor one piece out. Security would be one reason, management/backup/restore another, easier serviceability (because inherently the design will be better factored and parts better isolated from each other), and, in SQL Server, ability to scale out (or the lack thereof if it is a single database). Separating login and content databases for example often makes sense for bigger web applications.
And, if you really want a sound design, separate your entities in a single db, using different schemas, putting proper permissions on objects, you end up with almost the same effort in my eyes.
Microsoft products like SharePoint, TFS and BizTalk all use several different databases (Though I do not pretend to be aware of the reasons / probably just the outcome of the way they organize their teams).
Especially with regard to that you cannot scale out a single database instance on SQL Server (clustering needs multiple instances), I'd be tempted to split it.
#John: I would never use RAID5. Solves no purpose other than to hurt performance. I agree with the RAID10 approach.
Putting data in another database is not going to make the slightest difference to performance. Performance is a factor of other things entirely.
A reason to create a new database is for maintenance and administration reasons. For example if one set of data needs a different backup and recovery policy or has higher availability requirements.
Here at work (a multi-billion dollar manufaturing company with a 12 person Windows development team) we are about to go to a single master database for all new applications and will have it broken up with schemas for what we normally would have had databases for before. There will also be a few common schemas with stuff like employee directory and branch directory and so on...
I'm still not sure how I feel about this move, but we're about to have a meeting on this in a few hours to discuss pros, cons, best practices, pitfalls and so on... so I'm looking for your thoughts on this... Is it good? Is it bad? What problems are we going to run into a year from now?
Any thoughts, tips, or advice is welcome. Thanks
EDIT
In response to a comment on this question, we are using SQL Server 2005 and we are actually talking about moving what would have been seperate databases on the same instance into a single database. The driving issue is the complete lack of referential integrity accross databases as the majority of our applications need access to common data such as an employee record, or branch information.
UPDATE
Several people requested that I update this question with the results from our meeting so here it is. We debated back and forth the pros and cons of doing this (I even showed them this question using the projector) and by the time we were done we had pretty much covered the pros and cons covered here. About half of us thought we could get it done with the right resources and commitment, and about half thought we couldn't do it (or that it wouldn't work out well). We decided to use some time with Microsoft to get their thoughts and platform specific advice. I will be sure to update this question and my blog after we've talked to them. Thanks for all the help and helpful answers.
Larger database are harder to maintain due to sheer size: backups take longer, disaster recovery is slower which in turn requires more often backups. You can address these by creating filegroups and using filegroup level backup in your maintenance plans and on crash recovery you can use the 'piecemeal restore' strategy to speed things up.
Proper use of filegroups will make most of the 'cons' cited by previous replies go away: they can distribute the I/O, they can sanitize your maintenance plans and backup/restore strategy, they offer availability by taking offline only the damaged portion of the the db in case of crash. So I'd say that while those 'cons' are legit concerns, they have can be mitigated by a proper deployment strategy. Its true though that these mitigation actions require a true, experienced, dba at the helm as they will go beyond the comfort zone of a developer turned dba by need.
Some of the pros I can think of quickly:
Consistency. You can have a backup-restore so that all data is consistent. Separate dbs don't allow this because you cannot coordinate a consistent set of backups unless you take them all offline, or make them r/o, during the backup.
Dirt cheap high availability: you can deploy database mirroring for disaster recoverability and high availability. Multiple databases have problems because one cannot coordinate a simultaneous failover and apps are faced with the dilemma of seeking each database current location.
Security. While most other posts see one database harder to secure, I'd say is easier to secure. Multiple databases seem harder to secure properly simply because what everyone does is they make one login and add it to that database db_owner group. Having one database will make things harder (unless you end up making everyone dbo, very bad) but once you start doing the right thing (granular access) then one db is not harder than multiple dbs, is actually easier because you won't have to copy/maintain some common groups/rights across multiple dbs.
Control. Will be easier to impose certain policies and good practices on a single db rather than multiple ones (no data access to developers, app data access only through execute rights on the schema to enforce procedures access etc).
There are also some cons I did not see in other posts:
This will be much harder to pull off that you think right now
Increase coupling between formerly separated applications will impose development restrictions: you can't simply alter your schema, you will have to coordinate it with the rest of the apps (you can argue that this was also the case before, but was brushed under the carpet by having separate dbs, and you're right)
Log writes that are now distributed across multiple db logs will be consolidated into one single log file. If your writes are significant, this may turn out to be a serious bottleneck and force you to buy some expensive fast drives for the new, consolidated, log file. In general this can be addresses by making the log drive a stripped array across as many stripes as needed to make it fast enough (usually raid 10).
GAM/SGAM/PFS allocations will also be consolidated, but again this will be alleviated by proper use of file groups.
Pros:
You only need to remember one connection string
When users report that access is slow, you know which DB is causing the trouble
Cons:
Backups of The One DB will take a long time and will get progressively longer over time.
Restoring data from a backup will get increasingly difficult.
Performance Tuning (SQL Profiler, Execution Plan estimation) for a feature for one app will slow down every app.
Restricting access to a single application's data is cumbersome if at all possible which will likely mean in practice that all devs and DBAs will be given keys to the ENTIRE kingdom.
New developers/DBAs have a much larger learning curve as they need to navigate a large and mostly useless (to them) database structure which means higher costs for training/ramp up.
When The One database goes down, everyone in your organization plays solitaire until it is restored.
Creating test instances for app development means copying your entire db
The only "Pro" I can think of is that all of your systems will be in the one database and therefore a single place to backup, store, etc. However, I would consider this to also be one of the biggest "Cons".
Some other general Cons:
Much harder to move an application to a different location/server in the future.
Possible locking issues if any applications make use of tempdb.
Possible unrelated performance degredation on one application when another application is being used.
Much harder to implement an application level security model if all tables are in the same database.
It sounds to me as though your company is transitioning between two completely distinct motives for using database technology. The first is application support. The second is data integration. If I'm right about this, the process will open up a huge can of worms, and many of the issues won't even be addressed by putting all the data in one big database.
Consider two of the points you made. The first is the complete lack of referential integrity across different databases. The second is the idea that each application will have its own schema. What this permits to happen is complete lack of referential integrity across schemas, putting you back in the quicksand you are in now.
Fixing the data so that referential integrity is present, and fixing the schemas so that referential integrity is enforced, and fixing the applications so that the applications agree with the new schemas will turn out to be a monumental task.
Here's what your company really needs to do: Have one single CONCEPTUAL database that contains all "enterprise data", and defined in such a way that both referential integrity and entity integrity are enforced. Revise existing schemas so that they conform to the CONCEPTUAL database except for data that is both purely local to that schema and undocumented in the unified conceptual database. Use constraints wherever needed to guarantee that the data covered by these schemas doesn't lose integrity.
Make the decision about whether these schemas belong in one database or many databases based on database administration, fail soft, security, and performance requirements and NOT on the need to integrate data. Whether you use one platform or multiple platforms is a separable decision.
Where necessary, maintain synchronized copies of the same data in separate databases. Include the overhead of doing this in your performance considerations above.
Document the conceptual database out the gazoo. Don't just settle for definitions of the FORM of data. Insist on definitions of the semantics of the data as well.
Notice that if you use ID fields instead of natural keys to enforce referential integrity, you will have to generate each ID field in one schema, and let the association between ID and dependent data propagate by means of synonyms, views, and synchronized replication.
This is not going to be easy.
If DB is getting bigger, making back-up is getting more difficult because of it's size.
This could mean a serious scalability problem if you want to add high-traffic applications in the future, since it is much easier to add new database servers which run seperate dbs than it is to parrallelize a single DB. At least in SQL Server.
Pros:
The convenience of having everything in one place
Thinking less about good database design
Cons:
Even unrelated things are in one place
Less thinking about good database design leading to poorly normalized data
To me this just sounds like laziness and a belief that all this "fancy ivory tower database stuff" is worthless.
I can see that being scary, but considering the number of businesses that use Oracle EBS, or SAP, or other systems that are, in essence, this same configuration, I don't see it being a Bad Thing™. It's a big move, and will be tough to get correct, but it can really improve integration across the enterprise in the long run.
I've never heard of this approach and would like to know how the meeting goes. I see no real benefit in combining multiple applications into a single database when the data doesn't relate to each other.
I'm thinking you might have issues if you decide that an application requires it's own database server at one point.
Ah, the old EggsInOneBasket design pattern. It's not a favourite.
You're just compounding any problems caused by damage to that database. Spread the risk!
For the referential integrity issue, you can make copies of those shared tables in the subsidiary databases. You can't use real replication, but what you do is deny everything but select on these to most users.
On the same server, you can either push or pull data from the official repository of the master data and insert any new rows/update any changed rows. You can even do this with a trigger in the master database (I don't recommend it, though).
If it's different instances or servers, you can use linked servers or SSIS.
You can put the common data into a "core" schema in each database. Then you can have tools to check that all your core tables in every subsidiary database are consistent. The worse that can happen is that an application is not seeing a new employee because the core isn't updated. And keeping your database separate gives you an ability to decouple and gives you maintenance windows. (You can even decouple and run "standalone" if your master is down for maintenance).
I expect you'll only be seeing a few dozen of these core entity tables in even a largish enterprise.
There are many other ways to solve the referential integrity (RI) issue. I am not as familiar with SQL Server as other DB's. In Informix you can use synonyms to point to objects in other DB's and use these for your RI. In Oracle you can make a DB links to one or more DB's to accomplish the same thing.
These approaches have the issue that if any of the DB's are down the RI will fail causing issues in the dependent DB's. selects would work, but inserts would fail.
Consolidation can be a good idea, depending upon the size of the schema's, and other issues with scalability. SQL Server has serious scalability issues. Other DB platforms allow horizontal scaling with either a share everything approach (Oracle's RAC, latest Informix release) or a partitioned share nothing approach (DB2's DPF, Informix XPS, Netezza, Teradata)
I am with some of the others here interested to hear the results of your meeting.
I'm working on a web app that is somewhere between an email service and a social network. I feel it has the potential to grow really big in the future, so I'm concerned about scalability.
Instead of using one centralized MySQL/InnoDB database and then partitioning it when that time comes, I've decided to create a separate SQLite database for each active user: one active user per 'shard'.
That way backing up the database would be as easy as copying each user's small database file to a remote location once a day.
Scaling up will be as easy as adding extra hard disks to store the new files.
When the app grows beyond a single server I can link the servers together at the filesystem level using GlusterFS and run the app unchanged, or rig up a simple SQLite proxy system that will allow each server to manipulate sqlite files in adjacent servers.
Concurrency issues will be minimal because each HTTP request will only touch one or two database files at a time, out of thousands, and SQLite only blocks on reads anyway.
I'm betting that this approach will allow my app to scale gracefully and support lots of cool and unique features. Am I betting wrong? Am I missing anything?
UPDATE I decided to go with a less extreme solution, which is working fine so far. I'm using a fixed number of shards - 256 sqlite databases, to be precise. Each user is assigned and bound to a random shard by a simple hash function.
Most features of my app require access to just one or two shards per request, but there is one in particular that requires the execution of a simple query on 10 to 100 different shards out of 256, depending on the user. Tests indicate it would take about 0.02 seconds, or less, if all the data is cached in RAM. I think I can live with that!
UPDATE 2.0 I ported the app to MySQL/InnoDB and was able to get about the same performance for regular requests, but for that one request that requires shard walking, innodb is 4-5 times faster. For this reason, and other reason, I'm dropping this architecture, but I hope someone somewhere finds a use for it...thanks.
The place where this will fail is if you have to do what's called "shard walking" - which is finding out all the data across a bunch of different users. That particular kind of "query" will have to be done programmatically, asking each of the SQLite databases in turn - and will very likely be the slowest aspect of your site. It's a common issue in any system where data has been "sharded" into separate databases.
If all the of the data is self-contained to the user, then this should scale pretty well - the key to making this an effective design is to know how the data is likely going to be used and if data from one person will be interacting with data from another (in your context).
You may also need to watch out for file system resources - SQLite is great, awesome, fast, etc - but you do get some caching and writing benefits when using a "standard database" (i.e. MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc) because of how they're designed. In your proposed design, you'll be missing out on some of that.
Sounds to me like a maintenance nightmare. What happens when the schema changes on all those DBs?
http://freshmeat.net/projects/sphivedb
SPHiveDB is a server for sqlite database. It use JSON-RPC over HTTP to expose a network interface to use SQLite database. It supports combining multiple SQLite databases into one file. It also supports the use of multiple files. It is designed for the extreme sharding schema -- one SQLite database per user.
One possible problem is that having one database for each user will use disk space and RAM very inefficiently, and as the user base grows the benefit of using a light and fast database engine will be lost completely.
A possible solution to this problem is to create "minishards" consisting of maybe 1024 SQLite databases housing up to 100 users each. This will be more efficient than the DB per user approach, because data is packed more efficiently. And lighter than the Innodb database server approach, because we're using Sqlite.
Concurrency will also be pretty good, but queries will be less elegant (shard_id yuckiness). What do you think?
If you're creating a separate database for each user, it sounds like you're not setting up relationships... so why use a relational database at all?
If your data is this easy to shard, why not just use a standard database engine, and if you scale large enough that the DB becomes the bottleneck, shard the database, with different users in different instances? The effect is the same, but you're not using scores of tiny little databases.
In reality, you probably have at least some shared data that doesn't belong to any single user, and you probably frequently need to access data for more than one user. This will cause problems with either system, though.
I am considering this same architecture as I basically wanted to use the server side SQLLIte databases as backup and synching copy for clients. My idea for querying across all the data is to use Sphinx for full-text search and run Hadoop jobs from flat dumps of all the data to Scribe and then expose the results as webservies. This post gives me some pause for thought however, so I hope people will continue to respond with their opinion.
Having one database per user would make it really easy to restore individual users data of course, but as #John said, schema changes would require some work.
Not enough to make it hard, but enough to make it non-trivial.