I have an application that needs to send data to a cloud database (DynamoDb).
The app runs on a computer that can lose internet connectivity or be switched off at any time, but I must ensure that all data eventually gets to the cloud database.
I can assume the application will eventually be switched on, and will eventually get internet access back.
The app is written in VB .NET
What are some schemes for achieving this, and are there any ready-made products that already achieve this?
You could implement a write-through cache using a local DynamoDB instance (or even using SQLite). But without getting specific details about what kind of data you'd be storing into the database, and what data should be made available "offline" it's hard to say exactly how you should structure your application. You'll definitely want to not keep everything local, unless the volume of data is really small overall.
Then there is the problem of resolving conflicts that may occur during network partitions (ie. a client goes offline and makes some database modifications, while other clients also make modifications to the database; these need to be reconciled and it's up to you, and your users to determine how)
It's not a simple problem to solve.
Related
We are building an app for our teams out in the field that they collect their daily information using Firebase. However one of our concerns is poor connectivity. We are looking to build an Online/Offline button they can click to essentially work offline for when things slow down. We've built a workflow in which we query all the relevant information from Firestore.
I wanted to know if there was a way to tell Firestore to work directly on the cache only and not try to hit the servers directly. I don't want Firestore attempting to make server calls until they enable online again.
You shouldn't need to do this. If you use realtime listeners, they will already first return the data from the local cache, and only then reach out to the server to check for updates.
If you are performing one-time reads, the SDK will by default try to reach the server first (since it has only one chance to give you a value). If you want it to only check the local cache, you can pass an argument to the get call to do so.
You can also disable the network completely, in which case the client will never call on the network and only serve from the local cache. I recommend reading about that and more in the documentation on using Firestore offline.
I am trying to create an app that receives an Sqlite database from a server for offline use but cloud synchronization. The server has a postgres database with information from many clients.
1) Is it better to delete the sql database and create a new one from a query, or try to synchronize and update the existing separate sqlite files (or another better solution). The refreshes will be a few times a day per client.
2) if it is the latter, could you give me any leads to resources on how I could do this?
I am pretty new to database applications so please excuse my ignorance and let me know if there is any way I could clarify.
There is no one size fits all approach here. You need to carefully consider exactly what needs to be done, what you are replicating, how much data is involved, and what your write models are, all before you build a solution. Along the way you have to decide how to handle write conflicts and more.
In general the one thing I would say is that such synchronization works best with append-only write models (i.e. inserts, no deletes, no updates), and one way to do it is to log changes that need to be made and replicate those changes.
However, master-master replication is difficult on the best of days and with the best of tools available. Jumping between databases with very different capabilities will introduce a number of additional problems. You are in for a big job.
Here's an open source product that claims to solve this for many database types including Postgres. I have no affiliation or commercial interest in this company.
https://github.com/sqlite-sync/SQLite-sync.com
http://sqlite-sync.com/
If you're able and willing to step outside relational databases to use an object store you might want to have a look at CouchDb and perhaps PouchDb that use a MVCC based replication protocol designed to support multi-master replication including conflict resolution. Under the covers, PouchDb uses adaptors for Sqlite, IndexDb, Local storage or a remote CouchBb instance to persist client side data. It auto selects the best client side storage option for the given desktop or mobile browser. The Sqlite engine can be either WebSQL or a Cordova Sqlite plugin.
http://couchdb.apache.org/
https://pouchdb.com/
My organisation (a small non-profit) currently has an internal production .NET system with SQL Server database. The customers (all local to our area) submit requests manually that our office staff then input into the system.
We are now gearing up towards online public access, so that the customers will be able to see the status of their existing requests online, and in future also be able to create new requests online. A new asp.net application will be developed for the same.
We are trying to decide whether to host this application on-site on our servers(with direct access to the existing database) or use an external hosting service provider.
Hosting externally would mean keeping a copy of Requests database on the hosting provider's server. What would be the recommended way to then keep the requests data synced real-time between the hosted database and our existing production database?
Trying to sync back and forth between two in-use databases will be a constant headache. The question that I would have to ask you is if you have the means to host the application on-site, why wouldn't you go that route?
If you have a good reason not to host on site but you do have some web infrastructure available to you, you may want to consider creating a web service which provides access to your database via a set of well-defined methods. Or, on the flip side, you could make the database hosted remotely with your website your production database and use a webservice to access it from your office system.
In either case, providing access to a single database will be much easier than trying to keep two different ones constantly and flawlessly in sync.
If a webservice is not practical (or you have concerns about availability) you may want to consider a queuing system for synchronization. Any change to the db (local or hosted) is also added to a messaging queue. Each side monitors the queue for changes that need to be made and then apply the changes. This would account for one of the databases not being available at any given time.
That being said, I agree with #LeviBotelho, syncing two db's is a nightmare and should probably be avoided if you can. If you must, you can also look into SQL Server replication.
Ultimately the data is the same, customer submitted data. Currently it is being entered by them through you, ultimately it will be entered directly by them, I see no need in having two different databases with the same data. The replication errors alone when they will pop-up (and they will), will be a headache for your team for nothing.
I am working on an AIR app which should work in both online and offline model. The user can do various actions, while offline and the results would get saved in a local DB. The same needs to get synced up with the global DB once the user goes online. I googled a bit on it, and it seems that Adobe LCDS (lifecycle data services) is the only available option to do it. However, it is an enterprise solution, and way too costly.
Is there any other implementation for this? Has anyone used CouchDB for online/offline synchronization?
Thanks and Regards,
Kapil Kaushik
For doing a DB sync with your server when the Air app is only, you do not have any requirements as for which backend technology you use. LCDS makes it simpler, but it's not your only option. Heck, you could use just a normal PHP script to do the sync for you if you'd like.
The hard part of it all is that you need to figure out your syncing algorithm so that you don't lose any information. Normally what I do is that when the app is connected online again, it sends all the information that was modified/create (with timestamps on when it was modified) while offline to the server, then the server has an algorithm that checks if the offline information is newer than what was done previous (or does some other business rule depending on your situation). When the server decides which data is good, it then sends the updated data to the client and effectively syncs everything.
This can be done through a normal HTTP request, polling or pushing.
After reading this question and the suggested link explaining when is more appropriate to use SQLite vs another DB it's still unclear to me one simple thing, and I hope someone could clarify it.
They say:
Situations Where SQLite Works Well
Websites
SQLite usually will work
great as the database engine for low
to medium traffic websites...
...
Situations Where Another RDBMS May
Work Better
Client/Server
Applications...
If you have many
client programs accessing a common
database over a network...
Isn't a website also a client/server app?
I mean I don't understand, a website is exactly a situation where I have many client programs (users with their web browsres) concurrently accessing a common DB via one server application.
Just to keep it simple: at the end of the day, is it possible for instance to use this SQLite for an ecommerce site or an online catalog or a CMS site with about 1000 products/pages?
The users' web browsers don't directly access the database; the web application does. And normally the request/response cycle for each page the user views will be very fast, usually lasting a fraction of a second.
IIRC, a transaction in SQLite locks the whole database file, meaning that if a web app request requires a blocking transaction, all traffic will effectively be serialized. This is fine, for a low-to-medium traffic website, because many requests per second can still be handled.
In a client-server database application, however, multiple users may need to keep connections open for longer periods of time, and may also need to perform transactions. This is far less of a problem for bigger RDBMS systems because locking can be performed in a more fine-grained way.
SQLite can allow multiple client reads but only single client write. See: https://www.sqlite.org/faq.html
Client/server is when multiple clients do simultaneous writes to the database, such as order entry where there are multiple users simultanously inserting and updating information, or a multi-user blog where there are multiple simultaneous editors.
A website, in the case of read-only, is not client/server but rather simply a server with multiple requests. In many cases, a website is heavily cached and the database is not even accessed, or rarely.
In the case of a slightly used ecommerce website, say a few simultaneous shoppers, this could be supported by SQLite, or by MySQL. Somewhere there is a line where performance is better for a highly-concurrent database as opposed to SQLite.
Note that the number of products/pages is not a great way to determine the requirement for MySQL over SQLite, rather it is the number of concurrent users, and at what point their concurrent behavior experiences slowness due to waiting for locks to clear.
A website isn't necessarily a client server application in the context of use.
I think when they say website, they mean that the web application will directly manage the database. That is, the database file will live within the web site and will not be access via any other means. (A single point of access, put simply)
In contrast, a client/server app may have the web site accessing the data store as well as another web site, SOAP client or even a smart client. IN this context, you have multiple clients access one database (server). This is where the web site would become (yet another) client.
Another aspect to consider when constrasting the two, is what is the percentage of writes compared to reads. I think SQLite will perform happiply when there is little writing going on compared to the amount of reads. SQLite, I understand, doesn't do well in a multiple write scenario. It's intended for a single (handful?) process to be manipulating it.
I mainly only use SQLite on embedded applications. (iOS, Android). For larger, more complex websites (like your describing) I would use something like mySQL.