Does Terraform (v0.7.4) support Google Cloud SQL 2nd generation instance creation/management?
I can't find any reference to it being supported or not available on the Terraform website.
Terraform's google_sql_database_instance resources works fine with Google Cloud SQL Second Generation instances, the only difference being in the tiers that are used.
Simply choosing one of the second generation tiers such as db-n1-standard-1 vs a first generation tier such as D1 will then create a second generation instance.
Related
I'm trying to use Application Insights to monitor an application composed of different microservices in an AKS (Azure Kubernetes Services) cluster.
As AKS does not support the auto-instrumentation scenario, I had to instrument myself my js/.net services with the dedicated libs.
And this works fine, I can see my different microservices on an application map.
But I can't see my database server in the dependencies like in the documentation's example, even if those dependencies should be automatically collected as stated in the dependencies documentation.
I'm using Azure Database for PostgreSQL - Flexible Server. Is this normal? Is it due to the fact I am using PostgreSQL instead of SQL Server? Is this related to the fact that I'm using Npqsl instead of SqlClient ?
We need to host existing Azure Durable Function app outside of Azure. We can run the function app as a container, but we'll need to configure an alternate data store (which is currently using Azure Storage). I can see MS SQL is a supported alternate - see here - and this will work for us, but Postgres is more aligned with the direction we're headed, so would be preferable. Has anyone used Postgres as the storage provider for Azure Durable Function apps?
The language specific operations to deploy outside the azure can be performed by the steps mentioned in https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/durable/durable-functions-overview?tabs=python
For the storage considerations refer: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/storage-considerations
But there are no specific and perfect procedures for Postgre SQL and waiting for update from Azure.
Could someone explain the difference between SQL Server 2019 BDC vs Azure Synapse Analytics other than OLAP & OLTP differences? Why would one use Analytics over SQL Server 2019 BDC?
Azure Synapse Analytics is a Cloud based DWH with DataLake, ADF & PowerBI designers tightly integrated. it is a PaaS offering and it is not available on-prem. The DWH engine is MPP with limited polybase support (DataLake).
it also allows ypu to provision Apache Spark if needed.
SQLServer 2019 Big Data Cluster is a IaaS platform based on Kubernetes. it can be implemented on-prem on VMs or on OpenShift or on AKS Any cloud for that matter).
Its Data Virtualization support is very good with support for ODBC data sources and a Data Pool to support Data Virtualization- Implemented via Polybase.
Apache Spark makes up the Big Data compute.
Though it is not a MPP like Synapse, because of Pods in Kubernetes, multiple pods can be created on the fly through scalability features such as VMSS ... etc.
If you want Analytical capability on-prem you will use SQLServer 2019 BDC but if you want a Cloud based DWH with analytical capability features you will use Synapse
explain the difference between SQL Server 2019 BDC vs Azure Synapse Analytics
Server is OLTP and Synapse is OLAP. :D
other than OLAP & OLTP differences? Why would one use Analytics over SQL Server 2019 BDC?
Purely from a terminology point of view their product management have no clue what they are doing.
"SQL Server" is a DYI/on-prem/managed-by-you DB.
Fully Azure managed SaaS version of SQL Server is known as Azure SQL Database.
They also have "Azure SQL Managed Instance", and "SQL Server on Azure VM".
Azure Synapse is renamed Dedicated SQL-Pools.
Azure Synapse On-demand is renamed to Serverless SQL-Pools.
Azure Synapse Analytics = Dedicated + Serverless + bunch of ML services.
I'm going to answer assuming your question is:
Why would one use "Azure Synapse Dedicated or Serverless" over SQL Server?
SQL Server is on prem DIY, other is SaaS, fully managed by Azure. With this comes all the pros/cons of SaaS like No CAPEX, no management, elastic, very large scale, ...
Synapse' USP is it's MPP, which SQL Server does not have. Though I see things like Polybase and EXTERNAL TABLES being supported by SQL Server.
Due to MPP architecture, Synapse's transactional performance is worst by far (that I've seen). E.g. Executing INSERT INTO xxx VALUES(...) to add one row via JDBC would take about 1-2 seconds as against 10-12 seconds for importing CSV files with 10s of thousands of rows using COPY command. And INSERT INTO does not scale with JDBC batching. It'll take 100 seconds to insert 100 rows in one batch.
It is not your fault that you are confused. IMO Azure Product Management for Databases (SQL Server, DW, ADP, Synapse, Analytics and the 10 other flavors of all these) have no clue what they want to offer 2 years from today. Every product boasts of Big Data, Massive this and that, ML and Analytics, Elastic this and that. Go figure.
PS: Check out Snowflake if you haven't.
I'm not affiliated with Microsoft or Snowflake.
I believe the user user3129206 is asking
SQL Server 2019 BDC vs Azure Synapse Analytics
not
SQL Server vs Azure Synapse Analytics
so the first answer is relevant.
The only thing I'd argue is that the BDC is also an MPP like Synapse because of Pods in Kubernetes if implemented right, with many servers + HDS.
I plan to test BDC on-premises and see how demanding the install and maintenance are.
The neat thing about the BDC seems to be easy, partially or fully, to port it from on-premises to Azure or any cloud.
It seems that BDC is both OLTP and OLAP, trying to provide the best of both worlds.
As I am on the same comparison quest, I'll try to get back and share what I learn.
Recently, I went to the AWS Proton service, I also tried to do a hands-on service, unfortunately, I was not able to succeed.
What I am not able to understand is what advantage I am getting with Proton, because the end to end pipeline I can build using CodeCommit, CodeDeploy, CodePipeline, and CloudFormation.
It will be great if someone could jot down the use cases where Proton can be used compared to the components which I suggested above.
From what I understand, AWS Proton is similar to AWS Service Catalog in that it allows
administrators prepare some CloudFormation (CFN) templates which Developers/Users can provision when they need them. The difference is that AWS Service Catalog is geared towards general users, e.g. those who just want to start a per-configured instance by Administrators, or provision entire infrastructures from the set of approve architectures (e.g. instance + rds + lambda functions). In contrast, AWS Proton is geared towards developers, so that they can provision by themselves entire architectures that they need for developments, such as CICD pipelines.
In both cases, CFN is used as a primary way in which these architectures are defined and provisioned. You can think of AWS Service Catalog and AWS Proton as high level services, while CFN as low level service which is used as a building block for the two others.
because the end to end pipeline I can build using CodeCommit, CodeDeploy, CodePipeline, and CloudFormation
Yes, in both cases (AWS Service Catalog and AWS Proton) you can do all of that. But not everyone want's to do it. Many AWS users and developers do not have time and/or interest in defining all the solutions they need in CFN. This is time consuming and requires experience. Also, its not a good security practice to allow everyone in your account provision everything they need without any constrains.
AWS Service Catalog and AWS Proton solve these issues as you can pre-define set of CFN templates and allow your users and developers to easily provision them. It also provide clear role separation in your account, so you have users which manage infrastructure and are administrators, while the other ones users/developers. This way both these groups of users concentrate on what they know best - infrastructure as code and software development.
I have production pipelines which only runs for couple of hours using Google Data Fusion. I would like to stop the Data Fusion Instance and start it the next day. I don't see an option to stop the instance. Is there anyway we can stop the instance and start the same instance again ?
As per design Data Fusion instance is running in a GCP tenancy unit that guarantees the user fully automated way to manage all the cloud resources and services (GKE cluster, Cloud Storage, Cloud SQL, Persistent Disk, Elasticsearch, and Cloud KMS, etc.) for storing, developing and executing customer pipelines. Therefore, there is no possibility to terminate Data Fusion instance, thus all the pipeline service execution contributors are launching on demand and clearing after pipeline completion, find here the price charging concepts.