UtterAccess.com
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome to UtterAccess! Please ( Login   or   Register )

Custom Search
 
   Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What Back End Now?, Access 2013 Web App    
 
   
johnpdmccall
post Nov 8 2017, 10:52 AM
Post#1



Posts: 1,698
Joined: 14-March 00
From: Scotland


Hi Folks

OK I've successfully moved one customer from Access Services to Azure SQL (using it only as a BE - not using the Web interface) - Yippee! It wasn't as bad as I thought. In fact it's working fast for my customer.

So the question is: does anyone here use Amazon Web Services and, if you do, which database are you using and was the transition difficult?
I'm thinking of using AWS MySQL but don't know if this is ok in terms of migration and pricing.
Most of my customers will have between 2-5 concurrent users, less that 2gb storage and each user will input data a few minutes at a time for a total of no more that 3 hours per day.

I'd like to compare AWS with Azure. With a view to (maybe) develop a web interface for users to enter essential basic data on the move.

Any help in figuring this stuff out is much appreciated!

--------------------
Cheers,
John
Go to the top of the page
 
theDBguy
post Nov 8 2017, 11:06 AM
Post#2


Access Wiki and Forums Moderator
Posts: 71,233
Joined: 19-June 07
From: SunnySandyEggo


Hi John,

Not sure if this will help but I deployed a MySQL instance in AWS as a test, and it cost me $20 in just 4 days without even doing anything with it.

Just my 2 cents...

--------------------
Just my 2 cents... "And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know" - Kansas
Microsoft Access MVP | Access Website | Access Blog | Email
Go to the top of the page
 
johnpdmccall
post Nov 8 2017, 11:24 AM
Post#3



Posts: 1,698
Joined: 14-March 00
From: Scotland


A tad expensive I'd say!!
Yes I think it's fair warning to the rest of us to be careful to know exactly what we're signing up for. I find the pricing structures very confusing. Had to have several tickets to and fro with Azure to be sure what I'm paying. Now I'm doing much the same with AWS.

So if anyone knows how to get a back end for Access running inexpensively in 'the cloud' please let me know...I've got a dozen or so to move from eventually from Access Services.

--------------------
Cheers,
John
Go to the top of the page
 
jleach
post Nov 8 2017, 11:27 AM
Post#4


UtterAccess Editor
Posts: 9,815
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Staten Island, NY, USA


Not sure why anyone would choose MySQL over SQL (at least in our usual realm). MySQL works well for some things (usually wordpress backends and/or PHP devs that don't know any better), but it's really not a wonderful database. MSSQL far outshines it in pretty much every aspect. Besides that, the driver support for Access to MSSQL is superb, whereas with MySQL you have to jump through hoops. It's just ugly all around, IMO.

That said, say AWS vs Azure: SQL Azure on Azure, or RDS on AWS. About the same really, when it comes down to the fundamentals. I tend to favor AWS for most cloud services, except for SQL Azure which I prefer over RDS. I find SQL Azure a slight be easier to manage on the database level, and the costs are comparable between the two (DBguy - not sure what you did, but $20 for 4 days is a LOT - especially if you weren't using it: both services should only charge on a usage basis, unless you opt for fixed rates with a lot of horsepower - in any case, sounds like something went awry there).

All in all, SQL Azure with an Access FE is a quite solid setup, I think, and I probably would have no further preference for something better (assuming I was stuck with an Access FE). The choice of whether to host it on AWS or Azure is six one half dozen the other, but I wouldn't consider any other database product without some considerable driving factor elsehwere (e.g., this is a small piece of a main system sitting on *nix where PostegreSQL might be a better fit, but in that case you probably wouldn't have any say in the db anyway, or maybe if you need specific advanced functionality that MSSQL doesn't offer).

Cheers,

--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
jleach
post Nov 8 2017, 11:29 AM
Post#5


UtterAccess Editor
Posts: 9,815
Joined: 7-December 09
From: Staten Island, NY, USA


I thought Azure pricing was pretty straightforward myself. At a very basic level, you should be running about $10/mo for a development-ready SQL Azure db at the lowest service tier. For light load applications you hardly need much (if any) more than that.

--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
GroverParkGeorge
post Nov 8 2017, 11:32 AM
Post#6


UA Admin
Posts: 31,243
Joined: 20-June 02
From: Newcastle, WA


I have a total of 8 databases in Azure, only two or three of which have a lot of activity going on. It costs me around $40 a month.

I run all of them at the lowest possible pricing tier. Your results will, of course, vary.

--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
johnpdmccall
post Nov 8 2017, 01:04 PM
Post#7



Posts: 1,698
Joined: 14-March 00
From: Scotland


Thanks George,

On average $5 per month sounds good!

Thanks

--------------------
Cheers,
John
Go to the top of the page
 
johnpdmccall
post Nov 8 2017, 01:10 PM
Post#8



Posts: 1,698
Joined: 14-March 00
From: Scotland


Thanks Jack, for that insight.
I think I'll probably stick with Azure/MSSQL. I just wanted some other folks opinions and yours is very helpful.
Any suggestions on the technology to build a front end web interface for MSSQL?

--------------------
Cheers,
John
Go to the top of the page
 
theDBguy
post Nov 8 2017, 01:25 PM
Post#9


Access Wiki and Forums Moderator
Posts: 71,233
Joined: 19-June 07
From: SunnySandyEggo


Re: " (DBguy - not sure what you did, but $20 for 4 days is a LOT - especially if you weren't using it: both services should only charge on a usage basis, unless you opt for fixed rates with a lot of horsepower - in any case, sounds like something went awry there)"

Yeah, not sure what happened either. Below is a snapshot of my Bill showing the RDS (MySQL) portion. I was actually wrong, the $20 charge was just for two (2) days (not 4, as I originally remembered). As soon as I saw the price, I decided to kill the database instance.

Attached File  rds.png ( 10.03K )Number of downloads: 1

--------------------
Just my 2 cents... "And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know" - Kansas
Microsoft Access MVP | Access Website | Access Blog | Email
Go to the top of the page
 
GroverParkGeorge
post Nov 8 2017, 01:30 PM
Post#10


UA Admin
Posts: 31,243
Joined: 20-June 02
From: Newcastle, WA


It looks like they bill by the minute (or hour) just to have it running and potentially usable .....

--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
theDBguy
post Nov 8 2017, 01:35 PM
Post#11


Access Wiki and Forums Moderator
Posts: 71,233
Joined: 19-June 07
From: SunnySandyEggo


Hi George,

As I understand it, they bill by hour and partial hour. So, if you go over 1 hr, you have to pay for 2 hrs.

--------------------
Just my 2 cents... "And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know" - Kansas
Microsoft Access MVP | Access Website | Access Blog | Email
Go to the top of the page
 
johnpdmccall
post Nov 8 2017, 01:59 PM
Post#12



Posts: 1,698
Joined: 14-March 00
From: Scotland


Looks like you chose an expensive one. Proving my point about the unclear pricing.
The one I was looking at is:
db.t2.small $0.044 per hour
which I think would have cost about $2 for the 51 hours - still quite pricey for what I need

--------------------
Cheers,
John
Go to the top of the page
 
nvogel
post Nov 8 2017, 02:37 PM
Post#13



Posts: 811
Joined: 26-January 14
From: London, UK


I agree with jleach. MySQL (and the same goes for MariaDB) would not be my first, second or third choice. Oracle is technically the most capable and reliable DBMS on the planet but the learning curve is steeper and the tools are less friendly for beginners. PostgreSQL is the best of the open source bunch and is years ahead of MySQL/Maria. SQL Server is the best choice if you need to integrate with .NET and other Microsoft products.
Go to the top of the page
 
PhilS
post Nov 9 2017, 03:56 AM
Post#14



Posts: 404
Joined: 26-May 15
From: The middle of Germany


QUOTE
Not sure why anyone would choose MySQL over SQL (at least in our usual realm). MySQL works well for some things (usually wordpress backends and/or PHP devs that don't know any better), but it's really not a wonderful database. MSSQL far outshines it in pretty much every aspect. Besides that, the driver support for Access to MSSQL is superb, whereas with MySQL you have to jump through hoops. It's just ugly all around, IMO.

I don't share your fairly negative view of MySQL. Yes, when given the free choice, I would opt for Microsoft SQL all the time too. However, you can build decent client-server-applications with Access and a MySQL backends too. I wouldn't consider setting the right options in the driver/connection-string being jumping through hoops.

For some businesses it boils down to cost. Why shell out a 5 or even 6 digit figure for MS-SQL (+ Windows Server infrastructure) if you can get MySQL (community edition) on Linux for free and nobody (except devs and admins) will notice the difference? It was a much bigger issue in the past though, when the limits of the free MSDE/MS-SQL-Express editions where much lower than today.
Sure, this comparison might be skewed without considering the TCO including maintenance and support, but if you just look at the up-front cost, MySQL (or MariaDB, PostgreSQL, etc. for that part) are a temping alternative.

If you look to the cloud, the picture is similar. Figuring out effective cloud pricing is a PITA, but from my impression an Aurora wrapped high availability MySQL instance on AWS/RDS is significant cheaper than comparable hosting on SQL Azure. - Comparability is an issue though, because I've a tough time figuring out the details of features and prices...

--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
johnpdmccall
post Nov 9 2017, 04:26 AM
Post#15



Posts: 1,698
Joined: 14-March 00
From: Scotland


Thanks Phils, that's a useful opinion to hear - and I agree about the difficulty trying to figure out the costs!

--------------------
Cheers,
John
Go to the top of the page
 
nvogel
post Nov 9 2017, 11:38 AM
Post#16



Posts: 811
Joined: 26-January 14
From: London, UK


QUOTE
For some businesses it boils down to cost. Why shell out a 5 or even 6 digit figure for MS-SQL (+ Windows Server infrastructure) if you can get MySQL (community edition) on Linux for free


Cost is a factor for all business, not just some, but everyone knows there is no such thing as "free" software. The cost decision should be based on project and TCO costs and not on licence cost alone. Having said that, PostgreSQL is just as "free" as MySQL is (i.e. it is not free) and personally I think PostgreSQL can allow developers to be more productive and offers better value for money. Oracle and SQL Server also have "free" editions (i.e. not free).
Go to the top of the page
 


Custom Search
RSSSearch   Top   Lo-Fi    17th December 2017 - 04:10 PM