Making a Case for SQL Server over SQL Database in Azure

Posted on April 17, 2013 by totogamboa

When Windows Azure went online some years back, the buzz prompted me to check on it too. But my main reason to check out Microsoft’s cloud solution Azure was Azure’s SQL Database (formerly SQL Azure). Initially, the Azure SQL Database was pretty lame if you start comparing it to its on-premise roots (the Microsoft SQL Server). A SQL Server veteran’s top 10 lists of things he can find in Azure SQL Database would probably be composed of things that SQL Database doesn’t have.

no way of backing up databases
no automatic database sharding mechanisms
no fulltext indexing and seaching
and yeah it doesn’t do this
and it doesn’t do that
etc …

Then Microsoft introduced FEDERATION as a way to make things elastic in terms of scaling database growth and people have hailed the feature as something that will allow Azure SQL Database to make a name of its own as the feature isn’t even available in SQL Server.

Then, one begs to ask if Microsoft could have allowed SQL Server to run on Windows Azure instead. Today, Microsoft gave us that power to provision, install and run SQL Server on an Azure Virtual Machine just like what we do on an in-premise environment. To some, this could put Azure’s SQL Database to the back end of the long line.

Why SQL Server Over Azure SQL Database?

The answer is simple. It is so we can run existing applications on Azure that are using SQL Server features not found in Azure SQL Database.

However, if the goal is just to migrate existing SQL Server based applications to the cloud, then we might be missing some of the major reasons why we have the cloud in the first place. And we dont have to go to that direction for this article. People are aware that aside from wanting to get away with dealing with the nuances of an in-premise infra, to some, going for the cloud simply means cloud scale load. And for those of us who still wanted an SQL way of dealing with data in the cloud, Azure SQL Database, can definitely handle any cloud scale load thrown its way as it has inherent mechanisms, like FEDERATION, to address issues related to handling load on a massive scale. But there are also a lot of things to be desired that are still not available in Azure SQL Database. Eventually, Azure SQL Database will mature and we will not have to deal with the missing pieces but some of us can’t wait any longer.

So the questions now are the challenges one need to face to use SQL Server in Azure instead of Azure SQL Database, specifically one that will allow cloud scaling. The same questions have been bugging my company so we can transition our applications and services over to the cloud (Azure specifically) without throwing away so much of the current SQL Server related assets that we have. The primary reason for this is that, aside from adopting the cloud, we are still maintaining our in-premise code base until when there are no more clients depending on it. But I don’t see our existing clients going in that direction so soon. The way I see it, the challenge would be our ability to maintain and run two code-bases. One for in-premise, and the other for the cloud. Eventually, the code for the cloud will become the code for in-premise.

So to rationalize all these based on my own and company’s scenario, it seems running SQL Server on an Azure VM will be the way to go. The challenge will be to use SQL Server on Azure as storage and data management engine of choice for a multi-client SAAS (software-as-a-service) type of system. I have identified a few major issues that I need to deal with from the get go:

(1) how to handle horizontal scaling

How would I shard? I would think a single database per client would be easier. Given that SQL Server wasn’t designed to be automatically elastic, I would probably need to develop a mechanism that would create a new database on some SQL Server instance on an Azure VM as soon as a new client registers. These VMs can be on the same or different Azure instance. The SQL SErver instance on Azure VM can be pre-determined, provisioned and should be running on standby and wait for new registrants.

(2) full text

Fulltext indexing is currently not available in Azure SQL Database. To provide a similar service, one needs to look at 3rd party search solutions like Lucene.NET. The difference between the fulltext indexing in SQL Server and that of Lucene is that, the former allows you to mix things up in your TSQL queries in the same TSQL statements. By using SQL Server on an Azure VM, one can have fulltext indexing and searching. However, SQL Server fulltext can only be configured on a per database basis. To do fulltext across multiple databases across multiple SQL Server instances on various Azure VM instances, one has to probably make SQL SErver fulltext work like that of Lucene.NET. To probably do that, one has to treat each client database as a document.

(3) reporting services

The simplest implementation for a multi-client setup I can think of right now is to include the login information in the report’s parameter and hi-jack the info to get the right database to query. But I am not sure yet if this is a good approach security wise. The other option is to use the report RDL control and access the RDL files from the apps.

(4) High Availability & Backup

Going for SQL Server on an Azure VM means you have to deal with High Availability issues like you do with in-premise implementations. Though Microsoft made sure that the Azure instances one is using all have redundant instances, there were downtimes that you don’t have control that you have to deal with. The good thing with using SQL Server on an Azure VM is that, full database backups like those you do in in-premise setup are available.

Given the above challenges, I would definitely go for SQL Server in an Azure VM over Azure SQL Database. It is probably much easier to fashion out a custom sharding mechanism or horizontal scaler, a lucene.NET like implementation using SQL Server’s fulltext than deal with a lot of Azure SQL Database missing pieces. By also picking SQL Server as the storage of choice, I could probably port the entire system with negligible changes to other cloud infrastructure provider. Should a client decides to run everything off the cloud, then that wouldn’t be a problem either.

It seems to me now that Microsoft has provided me a potent option with having SQL Server on an Azure VM. I don’t have to wait until they get everything I need in Azure SQL Database. Surely, my personal and company’s needs would make a case for SQL Server in Azure.

**************************************************

f677754256
Maira-ira Beach
Photographed in Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte

**************************************************
Toto Gamboa is a consultant specializing on databases, Microsoft SQL Server and software development operating in the Philippines. He is currently a member and one of the leaders of Philippine SQL Server Users Group, a Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) chapter and is one of Microsoft’s MVP for SQL Server in the Philippines. You may reach him by sending an email to totogamboa@gmail.com

Thoughts on Designing Databases for SQL Azure – Part 3

Posted on March 13, 2011 by totogamboa

In the first article of this series, I raised an issue considered to be one of sharding’s oddities. The issue raised was what would one do should a single tenant occupying a shard exceeds a shard’s capability (e.g. in terms of storage and computing power). The scenario I was referring in the first article was that I opted to choose “country” as my way of defining a tenant (or sharding key). In this iteration, I’ll once again attempt to share my thoughts on how I would approach the situation.

Off the bat, I’d probably blurt out the following when ask how to solve this issue:

Increase the size of the shard
Increase the computing power of the machine where the shard is situated

On in-premise sharding implementations, throwing in more hardware is easier to accomplish. However, doing the above suggestions when you are using SQL Azure, is easier said than done. Here is why:

Microsoft limits SQL Azure’s database sizes to 1GB, 5GB, and 50GB chunks.
The computing instance of where a shard can reside in SQL Azure is as finite as well

I have heard of unverified reports that Microsoft allows on a case-to-case basis to increase an SQL Azure’s database size to more than 50GB and probably situate a shard on some fine special rig. This however leads to a question on how much Microsoft allows each and every SQL Azure subscriber to avail of such special treatment. And it could probably cost one a fortune to get things done this way.

However, there are various ways to circumvent on the issue at hand without getting special treatment. One can also do the following:

You can tell your tenant not to grow big and consume much computing power (Hey … Flickr does this. :P)
You can probably shard a shard. Sometimes, things can really go complicated but anytime of the day, one can chop into pieces a shard. Besides, at this point, you could have probably eaten sharding for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

So how does one shard a shard?

In the first part of this series, I used as an example of sharding a database by Country. To refresh, here is an excerpt from the first article:

Server: ABC
Database: DB1
Table: userfiles
userfiles_pk	user	uploaded file	country_code
1	john	file1	grmy
2	john	file2	grmy
6	edu	file1	grmy

Server: ABC
Database: DB1
Table: country
country_code	country
grmy	germany
can	canada
ity	italy

Server: CDE
Database: DB1
Table: userfiles
userfiles_pk	user	uploaded file	country_code
3	allan	file1	can
4	allan	file2	can
5	allan	file3	can
9	jon	file1	can
10	jon	file2	can
11	jon	file3	can

Server: CDE
Database: DB1
Table: country
country_code	country
grmy	germany
can	canada
ity	italy

In the sample above, the first shard contains data related only to grmy (germany) and the second shard contains data related only to can (canada). To break the shard further into pieces, one needs to find a another candidate key for sharding. If there is none, as in the case of our example, one should create one. We can probably think of splitting up a country by introducing regions from within (e.g. split by provinces, by cities, or by states). In this example, we can probably pick city as a our sharding key. To illustrate how, see the following shards:

Shard #1
Server: ABC1
Database: DB1
Table: userfiles
userfiles_pk	User	uploaded file	country_code	city_code
1	John	file1	grmy	berlin
2	John	file2	grmy	berlin

Shard #2
Server: ABC2
Database: DB1
Table: userfiles
userfiles_pk	user	uploaded file	country_code	city_code
6	edu	file1	grmy	hamburg

By deciding to further subdivide a country by cities where each city becomes a shard, the following statements would be true:

The new sharding key is now city_code.
Our shard would only occupy data related to a city.
Our shard would only occupy data related to a city.
Various shards can be in the same server. Shards don’t need to be in separate servers.
The increase in the number of shards would also increase the amount we spend on renting SQL Azure databases. According to Wikipedia, Germany alone have 2062 cities. This is some serious monthly spending that we have here. However this example is just for illustration purposes to convey the idea of sharding. One can always pick/create the most practical and cost-effective key for further sharding to address the issue of going beyond a shard’s capacity without the spending overhead due to poor design choices.
At a certain point in the future, we might exceed a shard’s capacity once again breaking our design.

Thoughts on Designing Databases for SQL Azure – Part 2

Posted on February 11, 2011 by totogamboa

In the first article, I showed an example how a database’s design could impact us technically and financially. And sharding isn’t all just about splitting up data. It also brings to the table a group of terrible monsters to slay. There are a lot of concerns that needs to be considered when one attempts to shard a database, especially in SQL Azure.

NoSQL, NoRel, NoACID

In breaking things apart, one is bordering on clashing religions. One monster to slay is the issue of ACIDity. People discuss NoSQL, NoRel, NoACID to be one of the trends out there. And most even swear to the fact that these approaches are better than SQL. In my case, I prefer to call it NoACID and it is not by any means more or less than SQL. I have NoACID implementations on some projects I had. And I love SQL. To simplify, I’ll put in these trends in a NoX lump as they commonly attempt to disengage with the realities of SQL.

For me, NoX is not a religion, it is simply a requirement. The nature of the app you build will dictate if you need to comply to the principles of ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability). If ACID is required, it is required regardless of your data and storage engine or your prefered religion. If it is required, you have to support it. Most cloud apps that we see, like Google and Facebook, could probably have ACID to be absent in their requirements list. Google is primarily read only so it does make sense to have data scattered all over various servers in all continents without the need for ACID. By nature, ACID in this regard, can be very minimal or absent. Facebook on the otherhand is read/write intensive. Seems like it is driven by a massive highly sophisticated message queuing engine. Would ACID be required in Facebook? I am not quite sure about Facebook’s implementation but the way I look at it, ACID can be optional. ACID can well be present in operations concerned only to one tenant in case of an FB account. Outside of this, the absence of ACID could probably be compensated by queuing and data synching.

If Facebook and Google decided to require ACID, they could be facing concerns on locking a lot of things. While locked on, latency could be one of the consequences. It is therefore very important to lay out firsthand if ACID is a requirement or not. For a heavy transactional system, a sharded design presents a lot of obstacles to hurdle. In SQL Azure, this is even harder as SQL Azure does not support distributed transactions like we used to with SQL Server. This means, if your transaction spans across multiple shards, there is no simple way to do it as SQL Azure does not support it, thus ACID can be compromised. SQL Azure however does support local transactions. This means you can definitely perform ACIDic operations within a shard.

To be continued…

Thoughts on Designing Databases for SQL Azure

Posted on January 31, 2011 by totogamboa

Cloud has been the new darling in the world of computing and Microsoft has provided once again developers a new compeling platform to build their new generation applications on. In this picture enters SQL Azure, a cloud-based edition of Microsoft’s leading database product, Microsoft SQL Server. One would ask how one designs an RDBMS database for the cloud and specifically for the Azure platform. It is basically easy to create a simple database in SQL Azure but database creation and database design are two different life forms. So we ask, how are databases be in the cloud and in SQL Azure? In this blog, I hope to provide an answer.

Scale Out

First and foremost, the cloud has been one of the primary solutions to consider when an application is in the realm of a massive scalability issue. Or to put it in another perspective, the Cloud was both a catalyst of the emergence of extremely large applications and a result of the webification of a lot of things. Design considerations need to factor in unheard of scales that can span from almost everywhere. Bandwidth needed is of the global scale, hard disk space are in the petabytes, and users are in the millions. When you talk about building an application to handle this scale, one can’t do anymore the usual stuff any one of us used to do. One now needs to think massively in terms of design. E.g. No single piece of hardware can handle the kind of scale I just mentioned. So how does one design a simple database that is intended to scale up to the degree that I just mentioned?

The Problem

Supposing, we have a great idea of developing the next big thing and we named it FreeDiskSpace. FreeDiskSpace allows us to upload massive amounts of files where files can be anything one can think of. The scale of this next big thing is thought to be in the range of having 500 million users scattered around the globe with each users allowed to upload an unlimited amount of files.

The Challenge

With such order of magnitude, the many challenges we will be facing will definitely lead and force us to question every bit of our knowledge and development capability that we might have been using when we are used to doing gigs in the few GBytes of databases with a few thousand users. If what is allowed makes each user upload files in the range of not less than 5GB, one would need to store 2,500 petabytes worth of files. How does one store 2,500 petabytes worth of files and manage the uploading/downloading of 500 million users?

In the Cloud, you are less likely to see a bunch of supercomputers handling this kind of scale. Rather, you are more likely to see hundreds of thousands of commodity servers woven together forming a cohesive unit. Making use of these mesh to behave like it is as if it is operating as a unit requires design patterns that are more appropriate for these environments.

Database Sharding in SQL Azure

First, what is database sharding. To put it simply, database sharding is a design pattern to split up data into shards or fragments where each shard can be run on its own on a separate instance running on a separate server located somewhere. Each shard contains the same structure as that of another but contains different subsets of data.

Current version of SQL Azure offers NO feature that handles automatic scaling. This will surely change in the near future as everybody doing applications handling these massive loads will somehow need an automatic way to allow the application to handle this amount of load and data easily. One way that is guaranteed to be commonly used will be sharding databases. However for now, sharding in SQL Azure isn’t automatic. If one needs to shard, one needs to do it by hand. As I have said, in the future, Microsoft will be compelled to give us an easy way to practice sharding. Hopefully, that future is near.

Now we would ask, why do we need to shard databases in SQL Azure. The cloud and specifically with SQL Azure, with its limitations, forces us to use this design pattern. SQL Azure only allows us 50GB for a database’s maximum size on a virtual instance running on an off the shelf commodity server. With that, we surely need a way to work around these constraints if we see our data to grow for like 500 terabytes. Second, if we foresee a huge number of users hitting our applications, doing this on a single piece of hardware would spawn concurrency nightmares that would choke our databases to death.

Though there are other approaches to solve our scaling challenges, there are other interesting motivating factors where sharding becomes a very compelling option. Firstly, it is more likely for a database server to process small databases faster than larger ones. Secondly, by utilizing multiple instances of computing power, we can spread processing load across these instances to more processes can be executed all at once.

How To Shard

Let us try to go back with our FreeDiskSpace killer app (assuming we provide each user up 1GB in database space) and practice some very simple sharding so we have a partial understanding of what sharding is all about. If we are to design the database using a single instance, the table would look like this:

Server: ABC
Database: DB1
Table: userfiles
userfiles_pk	user	uploaded file	country_code
1	john	file1	grmy
2	john	file2	grmy
3	allan	file1	can
4	allan	file2	can
5	allan	file3	can
6	edu	file1	grmy
7	roman	file1	ity
8	roman	file2	ity
9	jon	file1	can
10	jon	file2	can
11	jon	file3	can

Server: ABC
Database: DB1
Table: country
country_code	country
grmy	germany
can	canada
ity	italy

If we are to shard, we need to decide on how we split up our database into logical, manageable fragments. We then decide what data is going to occupy each fragment (we can probably call the occupier our “tenant”). Based on tables we see above, there are 2 fields that we can potentially use as keys for sharding. These fields are user and country. These fields should provide answers to a question: How to we sensibly split up our database? Do we have to split it up by user, or by country? Both are actually qualified to be used as basis for splitting up our database. We can investigate each though.

Sharding by field: User

Server: ABC
Database: DB1
Table: userfiles
userfiles_pk	user	uploaded file	country_code
1	john	file1	grmy
2	john	file2	grmy

Server: ABC
Database: DB1
Table: country
country_code	country
grmy	germany
can	canada
ity	italy

Server: CDE
Database: DB1
Table: userfiles
userfiles_pk	user	uploaded file	country_code
3	allan	file1	can
4	allan	file2	can
5	allan	file3	can

Server: CDE
Database: DB1
Table: country
country_code	country
grmy	germany
can	canada
ity	italy

By deciding to make each user as a tenant in our database, the following statements would be true:

Our shard would only occupy data related to a single user.
Various shards can be in the same server. Shards don’t need to be in separate servers.
It would render country table a bit useless and awkward. But we can always decide to get rid of it and just maintain a column indicating a user’s country of origin.
Now with a one-user-one-database structure, 1 million users mean 1 million separate databases. In SQL Azure’s terms, assuming a 1GB costs us 10$ a month, designing our shards by user means we have to spend $10 million monthly. Now that is no joke!

Sharding by field: Country

Server: ABC
Database: DB1
Table: userfiles
userfiles_pk	user	uploaded file	country_code
1	john	file1	grmy
2	john	file2	grmy
6	edu	file1	grmy

Server: ABC
Database: DB1
Table: country
country_code	country
grmy	germany
can	canada
ity	italy

Server: CDE
Database: DB1
Table: userfiles
userfiles_pk	user	uploaded file	country_code
3	allan	file1	can
4	allan	file2	can
5	allan	file3	can
9	jon	file1	can
10	jon	file2	can
11	jon	file3	can

Server: CDE
Database: DB1
Table: country
country_code	country
grmy	germany
can	canada
ity	italy

By deciding to make country as a tenant for each of our database, the following statements would be true:

Our shard would only occupy data related to a country.
Various shards can be in the same server. Shards don’t need to be in separate servers.
It would render country table unnecessary as each database represent a country. But we can always decide to get rid of this table.
Asnwer.com says there are only 196 countries in the world. With a one-country-one-database structure, this means, if we are getting the larger 10GB, 100$ a month SQL Azure databases, we only need to spend $19,600 a month.
This design decision though is pretty useful until we ran out of space in our 10GB design to contain all users related to a country. There are solutions to this problem though. However, I will try to discuss this in my future blogs.

It is pretty clear that picking the right key for sharding has obvious ramifications. It is very important for us to determine which ones are appropriate for our needs. It is obvious that picking country is the most cost-effective in this scenario while picking user could shield you much longer on the 10GB limit problem.

This article only presents partial concepts of sharding but nevertheless has given one the very basic idea of how database sharding can be applied, and how all these translate when you choose SQL Azure as a platform.

Thoughts on Designing Databases for SQL Azure – Part 2

My First Shot At Sharding Databases

Posted on December 11, 2010 by totogamboa

Sometime in 2004, I was faced with a question whether to have our library system’s design, which I started way back in 1992 using Clipper on Novell Netware and later was ported to ASP/MSSQL, be torn apart and come up with a more advanced, scalable and flexible design. The usual problem I would encounter most often is that sometimes in an academic organization, there could be varying structures. In public schools, they have regional structures where libraries are shared by various schools in the region. In some organizations, a school have sister schools with several campuses each with one or more libraries in it but managed by only one entity. In one setup, a single campus can have several schools in it, with each having one or more libraries. These variations pose a lot of challenge in terms of programming and deployment. A possible design nightmare. Each school or library would often emphasize their independence and uniqueness against other schools and libraries, for example wanting to have their own library policies and control over their collections and users and customers and yet have that desire to share their resources to others and interoperate with one another. Even within inside a campus, one library can even operate on a different time schedule from the other library just a hallway apart. That presented a lot of challenge in terms of having a sound database design.

The old design from 1992 to 2004 was a single database with most tables have references to common tables called “libraries” and “organizations”. That was an attempt to partition content by libraries or organization (a school). Scaling though wasn’t a concern that time as even the largest library in the country won’t probably consume a few gigs of harddisk space. The challenge came as every query inside the system has to filter everything by library or school. As features of our library system grew in numbers and became more advanced and complex, it is apparent that the old design, though very simple when contained in a single database, would soon burst into a problem. Coincidentally though, I have been contemplating to advance the product in terms of feature set. Flexibility was my number one motivator, second was the possibility of doing it all over the web.

Then came the ultimate question, should I retain the design and improve on it, or should I be more daring and ambitious. I scoured over the Internet for guidance of a sound design and after a thorough assessment of current and possibly future challenges that would include scaling, I ended up with a decision to instead break things apart and abandon the single database mindset. The old design went into my garbage bin. Consequently, that was the beginning of my love of sharding databases to address issues of library organization, manageability and control and to some extent, scalability.

The immediate question was how I am gonna do the sharding. Picking up the old schema from the garbage bin, it was pretty obvious that breaking them apart by libraries is the most logical. I haven’t heard the concept of a “tenant” then, but I dont have to as the logic behind in choosing it is as ancient as it can be. There were other potential candidate for keys to shard the database like “schools” or “organization”, but the most logical is the “library”. It is the only entity that can stand drubbing and scrubbing. I went on to design our library system with each database containing only one tenant, the library. As of this writing, our library system have various configurations: one school have several libraries inside their campus, another have several campuses scattered all over metro manila with some campus having one or more libraries but everything sits on a VPN accessing a single server.

Our design though is yet to become fully sharded at all levels as another system acts as a common control for all the databases. This violates the concept of a truly sharded design where there should be no shared entity among shards. Few tweaks here and there though would fully comply with the concept. Our current design though is 100% sharded at the library level.

So Why Sharding?

The advent of computing in the cloud present to us new opportunities, especially with ISVs. With things like Azure, we will be forced to rethink our design patterns. The most challenging perhaps is on how to design not only to address concerns of scalability, but to make our applications tenant-aware and tenant-ready. This challenge is not only present in the cloud, but a lot of on-premise applications can be designed this way. This could help in everyone’s eventual transition to the cloud. But cloud or not, we could benefit a lot on sharding. In our case, we can pretty much support any configuration out there. We also got to mimic the real world operation of libraries. And it eases up on a lot of things like security and control.

Developing Sharded Applications

Aside from databases, applications need to be fully aware that it is not anymore accessing a single database where it can easily query everything with ease without minding other data exists somewhere. Could be on a different database, sitting on another server. Though the application will be a bit more complex in terms of design, often, it is easier to comprehend and develop if you have an app instance mind only a single tenant as oppose to an app instance trying to filter out other tenants just to get the information set of just one tenant.

Our Library System

Currently our library system runs on sharded mode both on premise and on cloud-like hosted environments. You might want to try its online search:

Running on Premise (http://krc-library.aim.edu/lisa7/lib1/opac/)
Hosted on 5$ a month Windows Shared Host (http://www.systemaeskuwela.net/sjcr/)

Looking at SQL Azure

Sharding isn’t automatic to any Microsoft SQL Server platform including SQL Azure. One needs to do it by hand and from ground up. This might change in the future though. I am quite sure Microsoft will see this compelling feature. SQL Azure is the only Azure based product that currently does not have natural/inherent support for scaling out. If I am Microsoft, they should offer a full SQL Server service like shared windows hosting sites do along side SQL Azure so it eases up adoption. Our systems database design readiness (being currently sharded) would allow us to easily embrace the new service. But I understand, it would affect, possibly dampen their SQL Azure efforts if they do it. But I would try to reconsider it than offering a very anemic product.

As of now, though we may have wanted to take our library system to Azure with few minor tweaks, we just can’t in this version of SQL Azure for various reasons as stated below:

SQL Server Full Text Search. SQL Azure does not support this in its current version.
Database Backup and Restore. SQL Azure does not support this in its current version.
Reporting Services. SQL Azure does not support this in its current version.
$109.95 a month on Azure/SQL Azure versus $10 a month shared host with a full-featured IIS7/SQL Server 2008 DB

My Design Paid Off

Now I am quite happy that the potentials of a multi-tenant, sharded database design, though is as ancient, it is beginning to get attention with the advent of cloud computing. My 2004 database design is definitely laying the groundwork for cloud computing adoption. Meanwhile, I have to look for solutions to address what’s lacking in SQL Azure. There could be some easy work around.

I’ll find time on the technical aspects of sharding databases in my future blogs. I am also thinking that PHISSUG should have one of this sharding tech-sessions.

Rationalizing Cloud Computing

Posted on November 22, 2010 by totogamboa

For the past couple of years, people have been hot on cloud computing bandwagon. And as in any case of a birth of a new trend, people tend to get into misconceptions that eventually led them to get burned. Some just plainly embrace something without bothering to find out what is in it for them.

As a co-owner of a very small ISV trying to grapple with trends in computing and making things work for clients and stakeholders, I would always submit to the pressures of looking into the possibility of taking advantage of what a new trend can offer, cloud computing included. And during these times, I have significantly looked into what cloud computing brings to the table and how my company can take advantage of them. I have at least looked into Azure and non-Azure offerings and have attempted to assemble a design for our company’s products that can take advantage of the good stuff that are in the cloud.

Though my company is definitely a cloud computing enthusiast as some efforts are actually being done to take advantage of the cloud, as far as I am concerned, it won’t be for everybody. But recently, there is a rise of people who are investigating their possibilities with the cloud. This is maybe due to the advent of Microsoft’s farm betting Azure or perhaps there are just too many misconceptions peddled here and there. In most cases, I always see some wrong assumptions being tossed into every cloud discussion that I have had. Clients too are asking me about possibilities of being in the cloud based on wrong assumptions fed to them.

But before I get into those misconceptions, I would highlight the traits that made me and my company embrace cloud computing:

Cloud is the great equalizer. For very small ISVs like my company, I can see cloud as a leveling of playing field against the big guys, at least on the issue on having to spend upfront on system infrastructure to offer something for my market. For under $100 a month, a small ISV can start big.
Reach. My company would be able to increase reach without much overhead.
Scalability. The fact that I would be able to scale as the need arises, cloud computing is definitely for companies like mine.
Administration. Being a very small ISV, system administration tasks such as deployment, support and maintenance takes too much toll on our internal resources. Having an easily accessible uniform environment like the cloud, it would allow my company to increase the number of clients to attend to without adding too much stress on our internal resource.

There are other niceties that made me embrace cloud computing, but the above items mentioned are the major factors that I believe can only be achieved through the cloud.

As convinced as I am that cloud computing is one area that my company should invest, I am also convinced that cloud computing is definitely not for everybody and definitely not for every situation out there, at least for its current incarnation. I’d probably list down 5 misconceptions that I often encounter. My rationalization of these misconceptions will be based on what I know based on the efforts my company is doing in the cloud. These includes mostly Azure based clouds as well as few non Azure ones.

Top 5 Misconceptions I Often Encounter

When I move my existing application from on-premise to cloud, my app will become scalable. Well, NOT without rewriting your apps to scale-out and be cloud-ready. In the cloud, scaling is not all automatic. For example, If you have an application that is not designed to scale out, it will not scale-out in the cloud. By scaling out, you have to know how to partition your storage in multiple storage instances. And instances can be spread geographically across continents. To scale-out, one has to start from scale-out design patterns, probably from scratch. Lucky you are if your current application is designed to scale-out.
I can easily move current on-premise application to the cloud. Contrary to peddled notion that you can easily move current on-premise application (legacy) to the cloud, it is really based on what you actually expect to benefit from the cloud. Like in Azure for example, it supports moving legacy applications to the cloud by using virtual machines to host legacy apps (e.g. hosting a Win Forms based app). But this approach for me is inefficient unless all you want to do is transfer from on-premise to the cloud to perhaps get rid of system administration issues while ignoring other implications and issues like performance, latency, security, etc. You would have to figure out new issues as simple as backing up your data in the cloud. If your legacy app supports features available in on-premise environments, you might encounter problems running them in the cloud as current generation clouds do not support all features that are mostly staple in the on-premise environments.
I have been designing on-premise apps for years, it is enough skill set to get me to the cloud. It is if you were designing on-premise apps using technologies and patterns similar to that available in the cloud. If not, you have to take a look at the cloud differently. If you want to write apps for the cloud, you have to think cloud. Scaling is probably the one issue that would force you to think cloud. If we are used to design our apps with a single instance mindset, it is about time to think differently and think multiple. Though of course, no one is stopping us to write apps to the cloud that way, but that is not real cloud apps are supposed to. Single instance design won’t scale even if you run it over current generation cloud. In SQL Azure, we have a 10GB database size limit. If we exceed the 10GB ceiling, what would our apps do? This seemingly easy to answer question could probably discourage anyone to embrace cloud.
I just have to design apps like I use to and deploy it in the cloud, and the technologies behind it takes care of the rest. This can’t be. If you were into scale-out designs by now, chances are, you wouldn’t think of writing an app and deploying it over the cloud. Chances are, you might have deployed a cloud app already or you probably didn’t know that your design approaches are very much like those implemented over the cloud. But for most, I doubt that it’s the case. Most on-premise apps are designed not to scale-out but to scale-up. For example, most SQL Server implementations just take advantage of new hardware to scale as added load comes. Intrinsically, Microsoft SQL Server is not designed to automatically load balance, for example, a single query statement. One has to learn how to partition tables into a single view with underlying partitions spread across a federation of servers so SQL Server load balances a query. This is not supported in SQL Azure though. However, even if this is supported in SQL Azure in the future, this is not the scaling wonders the cloud provides, your application still sees only a single instance of a view. With today’s multi-million users accessing just one web application at one point in time, you can only scale as much. With cloud computing, your scaling possibilities are like crazy. You don’t have limits in terms of servers, of CPUs, of storage. Having resources like this would force you to rethink of the way you design your applications. The cloud isn’t about the technologies behind. For me it is one big design consideration. It is about the way you design your applications to take advantage of the unlimited resources found in the cloud.
Any apps can or should be placed in the cloud. No one will stop you if you place anything regardless of how it will end up in the cloud. However, there could be applications that are better off off the cloud. For example, if you have an app with one massive synchronous process that you think has no way of being broken down into several pieces, you might as well stick to scaling-up on premise (unless your cloud offers hybrid services like allowing you to scale-up with a very powerful server). For apps requiring heavy informational security and if you aren’t comfortable with the notion that someone from your cloud provider might get into your highly secured data, you might as well have things on premise. There could be a lot of other applications that may not be practical in placed in the cloud.

It is very important that the cloud is understood clearly before everyone gets excited. While I am embracing it, I am welcoming it with a cautious attitude. Being relatively new, there are just too many considerations to think of, and too many questions that don’t even have clear answers for the time being.

Where Wildlife, Photography, Food & Databases Mix

Category Archives: On Cloud