Bill Benson
bensonforums at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 17:21:14 CDT 2014
Errr "Brad"... sorry. Half my acquaintances call me Ben at one time or other, so I have felt your frustration I am sure. On Mar 27, 2014 6:17 PM, "Bill Benson" <bensonforums at gmail.com> wrote: > I have no experience with the cloud and perhaps in less open minded > circles this negates the value of my opinion. But never this group, for > which I am grateful. I would weigh the possibility of a web service outage > which you are unlikely to have any control over, against the very much more > expensive redundant hardware bases you will have to cover to even touch the > reliability of the web. > > The option to have the data available and accessible where and when you > need it seems to be a no - brainer in favor of a web platform from a > reliable cloud operation. And unless you are running heaps of insertions > with huge datasets, I have little doubt you will be that unhappy with the > performance. This is, if you are satisfied with MS as a development > platform. > > I do have to ask, have you looked into portability / migration if the tool > proves unsatisfactory in the long term? Can you ask MS for a data pump > version of your database or would you just have to turn it off and walk > away, subject to a few exports of tables, but leave all your development > behind? (Not that things would be all that different necessarily with an > Oracle or SQL Server application either but I do think with those you can > export the schema, no?) > > I am sure if you don't get your feet wet trying a web service database it > will be a mark against you career wise so why not use the current need to > be able to say been there done that on someone else's dime. It comes well > supported and at least fairly well recommended, do you have that much to > lose? > > I wish the future was nit web development because I am so uninitiated in > it, wish I had an employer asking me to test out the platform Mark, I would > say go for it. > On Mar 27, 2014 5:54 PM, "Gustav Brock" <gustav at cactus.dk> wrote: > >> Hi Brad >> >> Your observation is correct. The Azure setup and the speed at which it >> evolves is impressive and proves to me the old saying "don't ever >> underestimate Microsoft". >> Because Microsoft didn't invent this, the "cloud". Amazon did that. But >> having seen the light, there's no doubt that massive resources have been >> allocated this infrastructure and the support it needs beyond establishing >> the large and reliable data centers: Easy administration targeted admins at >> enterprises, scalability not possible with in-house hardware, programming >> interfaces, and - perhaps the most important part - the integration to ... >> well, everything you can think of. >> >> One of our clients has asked for a customized document store and flow >> control. Problem is that this is a TV production company were all except >> accounting use Macs, and the network setup is handled by various Mac >> "techies" (you guessed it, it's a mess) so setting up a server in this >> environment is perhaps not then at least the last option. >> >> So, seriously, I consider storing all data at Azure. JC is right, that >> internet connection reliabilty and speed is a valid concern, but clients >> like these have fiber connections at 100+ Mb/s. It will work. Deciding to >> do so will, first, take very little to create the development environment >> and, second, deployment will be close to just "flip a switch". Add to this >> the establishing cost of zero money and ongoing costs that without in-house >> techies are impossible to match. >> >> Still, I believe, we will arrange for an off-line backup of all data - >> just in case. >> >> /gustav >> >> ________________________________________ >> Fra: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com < >> accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com> på vegne af Brad Marks < >> BradM at blackforestltd.com> >> Sendt: 27. marts 2014 21:37 >> Til: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >> Emne: [AccessD] To the Cloud or Not to the Cloud. that is the Question >> >> 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 >> >