I have transaction scope in my code which move transaction to MSDTC. But when I run this code into AWS cloud where RDS is SQL server. It is not supporting MSDTC please how can I make this supportable or what will be alternative way for this. I need MSDTC in my code.
Well, there isn't much that you can do since AWS does not support it (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_SQLServer.html).
Features Not Supported and Features with Limited Support
The following Microsoft SQL Server features are not supported on Amazon RDS:
Stretch database
Backing up to Microsoft Azure Blob Storage
Buffer pool extension
Data Quality Services
Database Log Shipping
Database Mail
Distribution Transaction Coordinator (MSDTC)
File tables
FILESTREAM support
Maintenance Plans
Performance Data Collector
...
...
The alternative is to deploy/host/manage your own MSSQL server on AWS.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/Appendix.SQLServer.Options.MSDTC.html
Looks like this is now supported by AWS.
Related
I am very new to NoSQL world and wondering how connections are managed by NoSQL databases like Azure Cosmos DB.
I am designing a highly scalable solution for real-time application. And one of the concern is how to manage numerous connections/requests to Azure Cosmos DB from Azure Functions or my business tier?
Is Cosmos DB subjecting to similar limitations as SQL Server is in terms of number of available connections?
Azure functions connections limitation allied to all outbound connections irrespective of target service. Some services might optimize the connection usage (pooling, multi-plexing etc...) for higher concurrency and throughput.
Specifically for CosmosDB: 2.0.0-preview package has connection multiplexing and pooling, please check https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Azure.DocumentDB/2.0.0-preview
NOTE: Azure functions V2 run-time is required for custom CosmosDB SDK version.
I just bought a WD my cloud ex2.
The reason I bought this over the white original my cloud is that this machine can produce a public IP for FTP transfer, becoming a true cloud based storage. But i also want to free myself from the chains of expensive web-hosting and it makes me feel even more pathetic because I have a storage device and I'm still buying storage for my websites. I build asp.net websites using WebMatrix, and have a SQL Server Database. Can my storage device run ASP.NET? I don't know much about Windows Server, but does that have to be installed in the myCloud? Would there be any way to do so?
Thank you.
No. Not an MS box. But you can use MySQL and recode your asp.net to php. Another great choice would be to get a free (for 1 year) Amazon Web Services EC2 instance. You can run a small MS Server there and keep your stuff in ASP.net
I am using a c program to write/delete 1-2MB of data periodically (10min) to sqlite3 database. The program also act as a read only database for my node.js web server to output Restful APIs. (I can not use node.js modules because node.js web server is on different machine)
In documentation its mentioned that in client/server architechture RDBMS might be good but that point is not put strongly
I am using a c program to act as a server to answer web servers request as well as other processes on different machine. The system require small data (~2-5Mb) frequently (every 5min).
If it is not good to use sqlite as client server database How can I convince my manager?
If its okay then why do they not have a standard server plugin?
When the SQLite documentation speaks about a client/server architecture, it says:
If you have many client programs accessing a common database over a network
This applies to whatever program(s) that access the database directly. (In the case of SQLite, this would imply that you have a networked file server, and that multiple clients access the database file directly over the network.)
If you have a single process that accesses the database file, then you do not have a client/server architecture as far as the database is concerned.
If there are other clients that access your server program, this has no effect on your database.
We are looking at creating a custom ASP.NET application for a client, however they are a nonprofit and thus budget is limited.
We typically develop ASP.NET web and desktop apps to connect to a central SQl Server 200X database, ie with a full version of SQL Server, running on networked Windows Server. In this case we won't have a full version available.
Are there any issues with using SQL Server Express in this sort of arrangement? IIS and SQL Server Express would be running on the same physical server, serving up pages over the local Intranet to users.
Any real differences to be aware of in regards to development of the app itself or deployment? This will be a fairly standard app, with SQL mainly being used for a datastore with tables and SPs, nothing really SQL Server specific beyond that.
SQL Server Express edition should be fine for this scenario. It has all the core features of the full product, but as you said you are only really using it for data storage and some SPs, then you will not need any of the additional functionality available in the other versions (ie. reporting and analysis services). There are some limitations to the express version (the biggest being that the maximum database size is 4GB), but they should not really affect you unless your are building a very busy ASP.Net application.
Some public-facing websites use SQL Server Express as the database server (DotNetKicks being the only one I can remember at the moment) without issue.
The exact list of unsuported features in Express is at SQL Server Express Features:
Database mirroring
SQL Mail
Online restore
Fail-over clustering
Database snapshot
Distributed partitioned views
Parallel index operations
VIA protocol support
Mirrored media sets
Log shipping
Partitioning
Parallel DBCC
Address Windowing Extensions (AWE)
Parallel Create Index
Hot-add memory
Enhanced Read Ahead and Scan
Native HTTP SOAP access
Indexed views (materialized views)
SQL Mail and Database Mail
Partitioned views
Online Index Operations
SQL Server Agent and SQL Server Agent Service
SSIS, SSAS, OLAP/Data Mining
The SQL Server Express with Advanced Services Features supports a "subset of Reporting Services features".
In addtion there are the operational restrictions:
Express will use onyl one CPU core
Express will not grow the buffer pool over 1 GB no matter how much RAM you have
Express will not allow any database to grow over 4GB and will not put online (restore, attach) databases that are already over 4 GB.
The key problems you may run into are the operational restrictions (one core, 1 GB ram, 4GB each database) and the lack of SQL Agent, preventing any sort of job scheduling.
You should not really run into anything, its actually a full featured product that MS SQL Express
Here's a really basic comparison from Microsoft.
hoping someone has experience with both sql server and postgresql.
Between the two db's, which one is easier to scale?
Is creating a read only db that mirrors the main db easier/harder than sql server?
Seeing as sql server can get $$, I really want to look into postgresql.
Also, are the db access libraries written well for an asp.net application?
(please no comments on: do you need the scale, worry about scaling later, and don't optimize until you have scaling issues...I just want to learn from a theoretical standpoint thanks!)
Currently, setting up a read-only replica is probably easier with SQL Server. There's a lot of work going on to get hot standby and streaming replication part of the next release, though.
Regarding scaling, people are using PostgreSQL with massive databases. Skype uses PostgreSQL, and Yahoo has something based on PostgreSQL with several petabyte in it.
I've used Postgresql with C# and ASP.Net 2.0 and used the db provider from devart:
http://www.devart.com/dotconnect/postgresql/
The visual designer has a few teething difficulties but the connectivity was fine.
I have only used SQL Server and not much PostgreSQL, so I can only answer for SQL Server.
When scaling out SQL Server you have a couple of options. You can use peer to peer replication between databases, or you can have secondary read-only DB(s) as you mention. The last option is relatively straight-forward to set up using database mirroring or log shipping. Database mirroring also gives you the benefit of automatic switchover on primary DB failure. For an overview, look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/passive-server-failover-support.mspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc917680.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/josebda/archive/2009/04/02/sql-server-2008-database-mirroring.aspx
As for licensing, you only need a license for the standby server if it is actively used for serving queries - you do not need one for a pure standby server.
If you are serious, you can set up a failover cluster with a SAN for storage, but that is not really a load balancing setup in itself.
Here are some links on the general scale up/out topic:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/wp-sql-2008-performance-scale.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479364.aspx
ASP.NET Libraries are obviously very well written for SQL Server, but I would believe there exists good alternatives for PostgreSQL as well.