Microsoft Azure provides an auto-scale feature for some of their services, including their web sites. This feature enables you to set a target CPU value, and Azure will automatically spin up or down additional "instances" of your web site in an attempt to meet your target CPU utilization. This allows you to meet demand spikes.
Most websites are backed by a datastore of some kind, whether it's MongoDB, Oracle Database, Oracle MySQL, or Azure's SQL Database. Thus, I immediately went to look at the scaling features of Azure SQL Database. As best I can tell, there is no "auto-scale" feature. Instead, you simply choose a tier and that's what you're going to get.
I've done a good bit of searching and while I've found recommendations like this one1, and talk about sharding and partitioning, nothing I'm finding discusses a way to "auto-scale" your Azure SQL Database in response to load. Is manual scaling the only method supported?
Related
What is the maintenance required from an organization when deploying an Azure SQL Database in the long term?
My current organization is hoping to do as little database management as possible, and have looked for products that fully manage our databases without much intervention needed from our end. Some products that are being considered includes Snowflake (for their automated partitioning of tables) and Domo (for their data warehousing, connectors, and BI tool offerings).
I'm leaning towards using Azure SQL DB for multiple reasons (products offered, transparent pricing, integration ease, available documentation, SSO, etc.), but want to first understand the skills needed and ease in maintaining it in the long run.
Will we have to manually rebuild indexes and partition out tables as we scale up? Or is Azure intelligent enough that it'll do most of the heavy lifting of performance optimization itself?
Does Azure or other vendors provide services to optimize a DB?
Sorry for the vague prompts, but any additional considerations in choosing DB vendors would be great. Thanks!
Actually for your questions, you should know what is Azure SQL database and it's capabilities.
I'm leaning towards using Azure SQL DB for multiple reasons (products offered, transparent pricing, integration ease, available documentation, SSO, etc.), but want to first understand the skills needed and ease in maintaining it in the long run.
This document What is Azure SQL Database service introduced almost all message you want to know. SQL Database is a general-purpose relational database managed service in Microsoft Azure that supports structures such as relational data, JSON, spatial, and XML. SQL Database delivers dynamically scalable performance within two different purchasing models: a vCore-based purchasing model and a DTU-based purchasing model. SQL Database also provides options such as columnstore indexes for extreme analytic analysis and reporting, and in-memory OLTP for extreme transactional processing. Microsoft handles all patching and updating of the SQL code base seamlessly and abstracts away all management of the underlying infrastructure.
Will we have to manually rebuild indexes and partition out tables as we scale up? Or is Azure intelligent enough that it'll do most of the heavy lifting of performance optimization itself?
No, you don't. Scalability is one of the most important characteristics of PaaS that enables you to dynamically add more resources to your service when needed. Azure SQL Database enables you to easily change resources (CPU power, memory, IO throughput, and storage) allocated to your databases.
You can mitigate performance issues due to increased usage of your application that cannot be fixed using indexing or query rewrite methods. Adding more resources enables you to quickly react when your database hits the current resource limits and needs more power to handle the incoming workload. Azure SQL Database also enables you to scale-down the resources when they are not needed to lower the cost.
For more details, please reference: Scale Up/Down.
Does Azure or other vendors provide services to optimize a DB?
As Woblli said, Azure SQL database provides the Azure SQL database Monitoring and tuning for you.
As a complement, you also can use Azure SQL Database Automatic tuning to help you optimize the database automatically.
Hope this helps.
Azure SQL DB offers the services you're asking.
You can enable automatic tuning, which will create and drop indexes based on performance gains. Force good query plans again based on performance. It will roll back changes if the specific change has decreased the overall database performance level.
It will not partition or shard your database for you however.
Official documentation:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sql-database/sql-database-automatic-tuning
I need to make sure the availability of my database is high. working with SQL Azure does not make that clear.
Is there a way to run multi servers (one will take over if one server fails? ) under SQL Azure, above that is there something equivalent to increasing memory on the DB server to speed up the Database processing ?
Read High Availability on the Intro the Azure SQL and then read Business Continuity in Windows Azure SQL Database. To summarize:
Data durability and fault tolerance is enhanced by maintaining
multiple copies of all data in different physical nodes located across
fully independent physical sub-systems such as server racks and
network routers. At any one time, Windows Azure SQL Database keeps
three replicas of data running—one primary replica and two secondary
replicas.
Right now there is no way to specify hardware configuration for SQL Azure Databases. It's totally out of your control and from SAAS perspective that makes sense. The backend management services are responsible making sure you get the best performance possible.
If you need dedicated and reserved hardware for your SQL deployment you may take a look at IAAS offerings in Azure and start a VM with SQL installed however you need to make sure you know the main differences between a IAAS and PAAS offering.
I do not know what your high availability requirements are, but you should look at the SLAs provided by Microsoft. SQL Database offers 99.9% monthly availability.
How do I see if an SQL Azure database is being throttled?
I want to see data like: what percentage of time it was throttled, the count of throttles, the top reasons of throttles.
See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2711868/azure-performance/13091125#13091125
Throttling is the least of your troubles. If you need performance then you would be best served to build your own DB servers using VM roles. I found that the performance of these is vastly improved over SQL Azure. For fault tolerance you can provision a primary and a failover in a different VM in a different region if necessary. Make sure that the DB resides on the local drive.
I don't believe that information is currently available. However, the team does share reasons why you could be throttled and how to handle it (see here).
I have an ASP.NET MVC 2 Azure application that I am trying to switch from being single tenant to multi-tenant. I have been reviewing many blogs and posts and questions here on Stack Overflow, but am still trying to wrap my head around the specifics of what's right for this particular app.
Currently the application stores some information in a SQL Azure database, as well as some other info in an Azure Storage Account. I'm considering writing the tenant provisioning code to simply create a new database for a new tenant, along with a new azure storage account. This brings me to the following question:
How will I go about testing this approach locally? As far as I can tell, the local Azure Storage Emulator only has 1 storage account. I'm not sure if I'm able to create others locally. How will I be able to test this locally? Or will it be possible?
There are many aspects to consider with multitenancy, one of which is data architecture. You also have billing, performance, security and so forth.
Regarding data architecture, let's first explore SQL storage. You have the following options available to you: add a CustomerID (or other identifyer) that your code will use to filter records, use different schema containers for different customers (each customer has its own copy of all the database objects owned by a dedicated schema in a database), linear sharding (in which each customer has its own database) and Federation (a feature of SQL Azure that offers progressive sharding based on performance and scalability needs). All these options are valid, but have different implications on performance, scalability, security, maintenance (such as backups), cost and of course database design. I couldn't tell you which one to choose based on the information you provided; some models are easier to implement than others if you already have a code base. Generally speaking a linear shard is the simplest model and provides strong customer isolation, but perhaps the most expensive of all. A schema-based separation is not too hard, but requires a good handle on security requirements and can introduce cross-customer performance issues because this approach is not shared-nothing (for customers on the same database). Finally Federations requires the use of a customer identifyer and has a few limitations; however this technology gives you more control over performance distribution and long-term scalability (because like a linear shard, Federation uses a shared-nothing architecture).
Regarding storage accounts, using different storage accounts per customer is definitively the way to go. The primary issue you will face if you don't use separate storage accounts is performance limitations, such as the maximum number of transactions per second that can be executed using a single storage account. As you are pointing out however, testing locally may be a problem; however consider this: the local emulator does not offer 100% parity with an Azure Storage Account (some functions are not supported in the emulator). So I would only use the local emulator for initial development and troubleshooting. Any serious testing, including multitenant testing, should be done using real storage accounts. This is the only way you can fully test an application.
You should consider not creating separate databases, but instead creating different object namespaces within a single SQL database. Each tenant can have their own set of tables.
Depending on how you are using storage, you can create separate storage containers or message queues per client.
Given these constraints you should be able to test locally with the storage emulator and local SQL instance.
Please let me know if you need further explanation.
As far as I know the key points to migrate an existing database to SQL Azure are:
Tables has to contain a clustered
index. This is mandatory.
Schema and data migration should be
done through data sync, bulk copy,
or the SQL Azure migration
wizard, but not with the restore option in SSMS.
The .NET code should handle the
transient conditions related with
SQL Azure.
The creation of logins is in the
master database.
Some TSQL features may be not
supported.
And I think that's all, am I right? Am I missing any other consideration before starting a migration?
Kind regards.
Update 2015-08-06
The Web and Business editions are no longer available, they are replaced by Basic, Standard and Premium Tiers.
.CLR Stored Procedure Support is now available
New: SQL Server support for Linked Server and Distributed Queries against Windows Azure SQL Database, more info.
Additional considerations:
Basic tier allows 2 GB
Standard tier allows 250 GB
Premium tier allow 500 GB
The following features are NOT supported:
Distributed Transactions, see feature request on UserVoice
SQL Service broker, see feature request on UserVoice
I'd add in bandwidth considerations (for initial population and on-going bandwidth). This has cost and performance considerations.
Another potential consideration is any long running processes or large transactions that could be subject to SQL Azure's rather cryptic throttling techniques.
Another key area to point out are SQL Jobs. Since SQL Agent is not running, SQL Jobs are not supported.
One way to migrate these jobs are to refactor so that a worker role can kick off these tasks. The content of the job might be moved into a stored procedure to reduce re-architecture. The worker role could then be designed to wake up and run at the appropriate time and kick off the stored procedure.