May 8, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item SQL Server on RDS
May 8, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Um...the big deal is....what? I connect remotely to every production SQL Server instance that I've worked with for over 2 decades. I rarely have to manage the OS on anything that my SQL Servers are running on. If I built it against a local development instance, I haven't ever had to make changes to it to get it to run in production. I would hope the RedGate tools worked against this Amazon instance, because it is just like every other SQL Server instance out there.
I guess I must have missed something, because you just described almost every SQL Server in existence. Only a tiny fraction of the SQL Server out there even have a DBA to manage them. Of the group that I manage, I set the backups up once and the sys admins take care of getting my backup files offsite. I rarely have to do anything at an instance level and even more rarely have to manage anything on the OS.
All Amazon has done is say "we'll provide the DBA".
Michael Hotek
May 9, 2012 at 12:21 am
I do not think that Amazon has just "provided the DBA", all the contrary, they provide the hardware and the sys admin functions, the DBA tasks is on our side. We use Amazon cloud services and, in my opinion, what it provides is a 24/7 uninterrupted service without the big spences a small or medium company can not afford to make, as in our case. We have all the connectivity, CPU & processing power, storage and other benefits Amazon provides for one tenth of what we should spend if we wanted to buy and administrate our own test/production servers. Indeed we have a small test server, but is only for that, small tests at developer level, nothing more.
May 9, 2012 at 2:10 am
Steve, you don't get sponsored by companies for posting this or do you?
I do not mean to question your integrity but you seam so positive about it. However that could be because I feel quite negative about it, thou I have my reasons.
However, since it's on the news all the time, it sure is worth debating now and again.
mhotek-836094 (5/8/2012)
Um...the big deal is....what? I connect remotely to every production SQL Server instance that I've worked with for over 2 decades. I rarely have to manage the OS on anything that my SQL Servers are running on. If I built it against a local development instance, I haven't ever had to make changes to it to get it to run in production. I would hope the RedGate tools worked against this Amazon instance, because it is just like every other SQL Server instance out there.I guess I must have missed something, because you just described almost every SQL Server in existence. Only a tiny fraction of the SQL Server out there even have a DBA to manage them. Of the group that I manage, I set the backups up once and the sys admins take care of getting my backup files offsite. I rarely have to do anything at an instance level and even more rarely have to manage anything on the OS.
All Amazon has done is say "we'll provide the DBA".
You've missed nothing, it's a sales hype. Virtualized server services in a new package is all it is, but with more limitations.
I would say that this far, the gain is not worth the loss. The loss would be the cost as well as the problem with performance, reliability and also the legal issues of where the data is stored and who has access to the data and who can demand access to the data. It's not legal to export Swedish personal information about customers etc to third parties like some agency in usa for instance which could happen.
May 9, 2012 at 4:43 am
You've spend hundreds of hours developing. A lot of your business logic is in your stored procedures and functions. You can't afford SQL Server hosting of your own. You use this service - your web site gets popular ... what's to stop someone at Amazon ripping off your code?
May 9, 2012 at 5:25 am
sku370870 (5/9/2012)
You've spend hundreds of hours developing. A lot of your business logic is in your stored procedures and functions. You can't afford SQL Server hosting of your own. You use this service - your web site gets popular ... what's to stop someone at Amazon ripping off your code?
A contract ?
May 9, 2012 at 5:57 am
Do you control the backups/restores? Is SQL Server patched automatically if a service pack or security patch comes out? If so, and it causes issues with your application how do your roll it back?
I just do NOT like the thought of all of my data in the cloud where I have no idea if anyone else has access to it and I have no way of knowing this.
May 9, 2012 at 6:42 am
sku370870 (5/9/2012)
You've spend hundreds of hours developing. A lot of your business logic is in your stored procedures and functions. You can't afford SQL Server hosting of your own. You use this service - your web site gets popular ... what's to stop someone at Amazon ripping off your code?
What's to stop your developers ripping off your code? They'd probably find it a hell of a lot easier than an Amazon employee, they'd know the prospective value and they could steal it more easily.
What happens if you host your site with a company like rackspace? Would you not do it because of the risk that they could steal your code? When do you stop on this paranoid train? Do you stop your developers from seeing it? Do you stop users from accessing your site since the EU courts just found that functionailty cannot be copyrighted and is therefore open to being reverse engineered?
Personally, I think the risk is a lot less that Amazon will steal you code as the liability Amazon would face as well as negative publicity means there's a lot more pressure on them to keep things secure than there is from internal perspective. I do however know of employees who have successfully ripped code and gone on to produce major businesses on the back of it and they could not be halted or prosecuted because they were individuals. You have a lot more recourse and less burden of proof required between companies.
May 9, 2012 at 6:44 am
First of all, I love this site, and therefore, by extension, I love Steve Jones, I suppose. You guys have saved me many hours of deadends and the hours some of you spend on editing your posts and example code is amazing. However... on the other hand... a little morning rant:
I have to say this post really does read like marketing copy and to my mind that makes the poster pretty much a shill. I wonder if I'm going to see Amazon RDS banner ads on my Google search pages now? This press release-like post does not note a single negative aspect of Amazon's new product--and if course it is just another product. One would think that an actual informative post might also mention the costs or at least provide a link to a menu of cost options.
Not trying to be totally negative without offering an alternative. What about this? Now that this 'news' is out there, what about an objective product comparision showing the other main players in this space and how they all rank along the most important decision vectors?
May 9, 2012 at 7:08 am
stephanie.sullivan (5/9/2012)When do you stop on this paranoid train?
Totally agree, this answer Markus question too I think
May 9, 2012 at 7:12 am
"...And they'll even handle the backups automatically for your new database. "
making backups is only 1 tenth of the infrastructure involved with hot standby-failover or DR procedures which typically have a lot more to it than just the database server itself. In our case it is dozens of database servers (some with dozens of databases on them), webservers, process servers, file servers, mail servers, FTP servers, routers and switches (off the top of my head).
If RDS is guaranteeing 100% uptime for your data you could cut out the 10% but I don't see where this allows you to eliminate the person (or persons) that will get everything else up and running if you have major equipment failure outside of the cloud.
But actually I do like the idea and I think has long legs. There will always be certain sectors (like banking or anything that involves personal information) that will could probably never just live out in a cloud somewhere.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
May 9, 2012 at 7:15 am
I think it's great that Amazon is doing this. It may not be for everybody, it may not provide the level of control and security that financial or healthcare data require, but for many smaller businesses dealing with less sensitive data and not enough resources to maintain their own database servers, this is a good option to have. As is Microsoft's SQL Azure.
Which brings me to my point: any word on how the two compare? Amazon RDS vs SQL Azure.
Hakim Ali
www.sqlzen.com
May 9, 2012 at 7:44 am
IceDread (5/9/2012)
I do not mean to question your integrity but you seam so positive about it. However that could be because I feel quite negative about it, thou I have my reasons.
[\quote]
Seems like you just did. I was told about this a few weeks ago and that we had the chance to participate in the launch if we wanted to. I liked the idea and service, and decided to write something and take advantage of the opportunity. If you don't like or trust my opinion, you are welcome to stop reading.
You've missed nothing, it's a sales hype. Virtualized server services in a new package is all it is, but with more limitations.
I would say that this far, the gain is not worth the loss. The loss would be the cost as well as the problem with performance, reliability and also the legal issues of where the data is stored and who has access to the data and who can demand access to the data. It's not legal to export Swedish personal information about customers etc to third parties like some agency in usa for instance which could happen.
There's value in it, and it works for lots of applications. Many applications don't have PII, medical, or financial information in them. Plenty of people have a use for it, even if you do not.
May 9, 2012 at 7:46 am
mhotek-836094 (5/8/2012)
Um...the big deal is....what? I connect remotely to every production SQL Server instance that I've worked with for over 2 decades. I rarely have to manage the OS on anything that my SQL Servers are running on....
All Amazon has done is say "we'll provide the DBA".
You just admitted you do sometimes. This makes sense for some applications and cases. There one (or 100) less system(s) for your Windows admins to manage. Production quality uptime is handled, backups, networking. There's a lot here, and if it makes financial sense for your situation, use it.
If not, don't.
May 9, 2012 at 7:47 am
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that with this service Amazon is providing the hosting service with network and system administration such that they stand up the instance and manage the administration of it allowing us to focus on the database stuff. Does it have the same physical limitations as SQL Azure? If so, then what's the advantage of their approach?
Several people have questioned the security aspect wondering if Amazon would just help themselves to the code or data in the instance. It seems to me that this could be a potential issue for any hosted system regardless of the level of administration. For example, many organizations pay hosting services to host a server and a NAS but do the bulk of administration themselves. Personally, I would love to have the same level of support without the O/S administration so all I needed to focus on was the database but I'd make certain that the contract protected my intellectual property!
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sqlrv
Website: https://www.sqlrv.com
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 39 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply