Hans-Christian Andersen
hans.andersen at phulse.com
Thu Mar 27 16:16:51 CDT 2014
A smart person / team should always plan for a disaster, whether you are in the cloud or with an in house system. There are many cloud services and it is highly unlikely all of them will go down at the same time. So I don’t see this as an issue any more than it was before. - Hans On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, John W Colby <jwcolby at gmail.com> wrote: > My biggest concern with cloud computing is reliability. I don't remember how long ago it was (last year?) but several of the internet "cloud" providers had outages. Unrelated, just "stuff" at the servers. The internet is still (IMO) inherently less reliable than an in house system. > > That said, the companies involved have a huge incentive to get the issues fixed. > > Several years ago a client up in CT was having issues just getting (staying) on the internet. Internet up / down / up / down / up.... down / up.... It was an issue with the phone company routers. it went on for days. > > If the db is in the cloud, then you are twiddling thumbs during the down cycles. > > It feels like the internet is getting more stable, but it is the nature of the beast that things might happen. Last year a group of hackers working for one of the Arab "terrorist" groups took several banks offline using DOS attacks. For days at a time the users couldn't do web banking. > > If the db is in the cloud, then you are twiddling thumbs during the down cycles. > > John W. Colby > > Reality is what refuses to go away > when you do not believe in it > > On 3/27/2014 4:37 PM, Brad Marks wrote: >> All, >> >> A few days ago, I posted a question regarding a new database that will >> be needed for a new small application (perhaps using Access 2007, MySQL, >> or Microsoft SQL Server). I received a number of replies to my question >> and I appreciate the insights that were shared. >> >> In the mean time, I have also been doing some R&D work with Microsoft >> Azure SQL Database. >> So far, I have been impressed. >> >> Yesterday in less than one hour, I was able accomplish the following - >> Set up a new Microsoft Azure Account >> Set up a new SQL Database >> Then with a small Access 2007 application using ODBC and Pass-through >> Queries I was able to >> Add a new table to the new test database >> Insert rows into the new table >> Retrieve this data. >> >> >> My background is in mainframe databases (Primarily IBM's DB2 and >> Cincom's Supra). I can remember how much work it was to accomplish >> these same simple steps with these databases. Sometimes we would spend >> days, just wrestling with DB2's security. >> >> It is my understanding that other Access users are using Azure with some >> success. It also sounds like the costs for our use of Azure will be >> very small ($5.00 - $10.00 per month). >> >> >> At this point in time, it seems like this is a good option for our >> little project. (We don't have Microsoft SQL Server installed >> "in-house"). >> >> I am curious if others have looked closely at Azure and decided to not >> go down this path. Perhaps there are downsides that I have not yet read >> about. Perhaps I am missing some important considerations. >> >> Thanks, >> Brad >> >> > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com