A Local version of Azure Table Storage - mongodb

Ok first of all I love Azure and table storage.
We're starting a new greenfield project which will be hosted as a SaaS model in the cloud. Azure Table storage is ideal for what we need but one thing stopping us from taking this route is the possibility of someone having to have the application deployed to their local web server rather than a cloud deployment.
This is something i'd rather avoid personally but unfortunately some people insist the their local setup is more secure than any data centre out there.
What i'd really like to know is if someone has created a local implementation of Azure Table Storage. I know microsoft have the emulator which in theory could be used (it stores the data in SQL which may be slow)
Anyone used the emulator for an internal deployment?
I'm happy to look at creating a wrapper for Azure Table Storage using their rest apis but didn't want to do something that's already been done.
Alternately can anyone recommend an alternate? I know there's RavenDB and MongoDB which also look good too but i've not had an exposure to how well they handle under load or when to scale them out.

The emulator is designed to simplify testing - it is definitely not intended to be used as part of a production deployment.
Is it possible to embrace both a cloud only (Azure Web role and Storage) and a hybrid design whereby your application can be hosted within your web server yet still use Azure Storage?
Jason

Related

Which kind of Google Cloud Platform mobile backend client is appropriate?

THE PROBLEM
I'm writing a mobile app which will allow a user to log in, save some preferences that must be stored in a database, and display congressional bills to the user.
I've only written simple RESTful services with PHP and MySQL in the past. I'd like to take advantage of newer technologies, and am a little lost on general direction.
The bill data (formatted as JSON) can be gathered by running the scrapers found here. Using docker, I managed to set a working directory and download the files on my local machine.
I've designed a MySQL database for holding the relevant bill and user data.
I started to mess around in Google Cloud Platform, and read the doc that describes different models. I'm thinking of a few different ideas, but aren't familiar with GCP or what I can actually accomplish.
QUESTIONS
1) What are App Engine, Compute Engine, and Container Engine each for? I get the gist that Container Engine holds different instances of stuff you load up with docker, and that Compute Engine sets up a VM, but I don't really understand the relationships. How should I think of them?
2) When I run those scrapers from the shell, where are the files being stored, and how can I check on them? On my computer, I set a working directory, but how do directories work in GCP? Is it just a directory in the currently selected VM, or is this what Buckets are for?
IDEAS
1) Since my bill data already comes as JSON, should I skip the entire process of building a database for the bills and insert them into Firebase somehow? Is this even possible? If so, am I stuck using Firebase's NoSQL, or can I still set up a relational database?
2) I could schedule the scrapers to run periodically, detect new files, and run a script to parse the JSON and insert new bill data into my a database (PostgrSQL?/MySQL?). Then I would write an API.
3) Download the JSON files to a bucket, and write an API that reads from them. Not sure how the performance would compare to using a DB.
I'm open to other suggestions as well.
For your use case (stateless web application), App Engine is probably your best choice. The Google documentation has severalcomparisons of your computing options
You can use App Engine with PHP and cloud-hosted MySQL if you want, which could be a good way to get your toes wet without going in over your head.

Separate Cloudant Service from Bluemix

I was hosting my node app on Heroku connected to a mongolab for the DB.
Thanks to a few tips from here, I've deployed my app code to Bluemix. I moved mainly because I'm changing databases from mongodb to couchdb, and am hoping that Bluemix might have a faster connection due the relationship they have as both being IBM services.
Ok, now for the questions :p
First, since Cloudant was added to my app as a "service" it was generically provisioned and hence the username/pass/etc were generated. I assume I can also simply create my own separate Cloudant account and put an all of its settings into my Bluemix app manually. So, if I was to do that, to separately link up a separate Cloudantdb to my Bluemix app, would it be slightly slower or have any other negatives? I'm asking because maybe when it's auto-provisioned (and all done together), maybe it is configured in a way with few network hops/firewalls are skipped between the connections. Remember my initial motivation for trying out Bluemix was due to its relationship with Cloudant.
Second, if I decided to just stick with the auto-provisioned Cloudant db, how can I change the username? I've been playing with the interface and don't see that option anywhere. If I can or can't, I assume that I should be able to point my separate Heroku app to it using the same credentials Bluemix uses and it should work the same (as a separate db, just like I do with my single Mongolab and various PAAS providers).
Thanks for the info!
Paul
You can surely create your own separate Cloudant account, and then enter all of its settings into your Bluemix app manually. The connection speed would depend on your choice of data center locations (SoftLayer, Rackspace or Azure) when you created your Cloudant account. If you choose a SoftLayer data center, the speed would be faster than if you have chosen Rackspace or Azure due to the high-speed private network between all the SoftLayer data centers.
I'm not aware of a way to change usernames after it has been provisioned. You should be able to use those same credentials to point your Heroku app to.

Blob Storage Server with REST API

I am looking for a solution similar to Amazon S3 or Azure Blob Storage that can be hosted internally instead of remotely. I don't necessarily need to scale out, but I'd like to create a central location where my growing stable of apps can take advantage of file storage. I would also like to formalize file access. Does anybody know of anything like the two services I mentioned above?
I could write this myself, but if something exists then I'd rather now reinvent the wheel, unless that weel has corners :)
The only real alternative to services like S3 and Azure blobs I've seen is Swift, though if you don't plan to scale out this may be overkill for your specific scenario.
The OpenStack Object Store project, known as Swift, offers cloud storage software so that you can store and retrieve lots of data in virtual containers. It's based on the Cloud Files offering from Rackspace.
The OpenStack Object Storage API is implemented as a set of ReSTful (Representational State Transfer) web services. All authentication and container/object operations can be performed with standard HTTP calls
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/

Azure Table Vs MongoDB on Azure

I want to use a NoSQL database on Windows Azure and the data volume will be very large. Whether a Azure Table storage or a MongoDB database running using a Worker role can offer better performance and scalability? Has anyone used MongoDB on Azure using a Worker role? Please share your thoughts on using MongoDB on Azure over the Azure table storage.
Table Storage is a core Windows Azure storage feature, designed to be scalable (100TB 200TB 500TB per account), durable (triple-replicated in the data center, optionally georeplicated to another data center), and schemaless (each row may contain any properties you want). A row is located by partition key + row key, providing very fast lookup. All Table Storage access is via a well-defined REST API usable through any language (with SDKs, built on top of the REST APIs, already in place for .NET, PHP, Java, Python & Ruby).
MongoDB is a document-oriented database. To run it in Azure, you need to install MongoDB onto a web/worker roles or Virtual Machine, point it to a cloud drive (thereby providing a drive letter) or attached disk (for Windows/Linux Virtual Machines), optionally turn on journaling (which I'd recommend), and optionally define an external endpoint for your use (or access it via virtual network). The Cloud Drive / attached disk, by the way, is actually stored in an Azure Blob, giving you the same durability and georeplication as Azure Tables.
When comparing the two, remember that Table Storage is Storage-as-a-Service: you simply access a well-known REST endpoint. With MongoDB, you're responsible for maintaining the database (e.g. whenever MongoDB Inc (formerly 10gen) pushes out a new version of MongoDB, you'll need to update your server accordingly).
Regarding MongoDB Inc's alpha version pointed to by jtoberon: If you take a close look at it, you'll see a few key things:
The setup is for a Standalone mongodb instance, without replica-sets or shards. Regarding replica-sets, you still get several benefits using the Standalone version, due to the way Blob storage works.
To provide high-availability, you can run with multiple instances. In this case, only one instance serves the database, and one is a 'warm-standby' that launches the mongod process as soon as the other instance fails (for maintenance reboot, hardware failure, etc.).
While 10gen's Windows Azure wrapper is still considered 'alpha,' mongod.exe is not. You can launch the mongod exe just like you'd launch any other Windows exe. It's just the management code around the launching, and that's what the alpa implementation is demonstrating.
EDIT 2011-12-8: This is no longer in an alpha state. You can download the latest MongoDB+Windows Azure project here, which provides replica-set support.
For performance, I think you'll need to do some benchmarking. Having said that, consider the following:
When accessing either Table Storage or MongoDB from, say, a Web Role, you're still reaching out to the Windows Azure Storage system.
MongoDB uses lots of memory for its own cache. For this reason, lots of high-scale MongoDB systems are deployed to larger instance sizes. For Table Storage access, you won't have the same memory-size consideration.
EDIT April 7, 2015
If you want to use a document-based database as-a-service, Azure now offers DocumentDB.
I have used both.
Azure Tables : dead simple, fast, really hard to write even simple queries.
Mongo : runs nicely, lots of querying capabilities, requires several instances to be reliable.
In a nutshell,
if your queries are really simple (key->value), you must run a cost comparison (mainly number of transactions against the storage versus cost of hosting Mongo on Azure). I would rather go to table storage for that one.
If you need more elaborate queries and don't want to go to SQL Azure, Mongo is likely your best bet.
I realize that this question is dated. I'd like to add the following info for those who may come upon this question in their searches.
Note that now, MongoDB is offered as a fully managed service on Azure. (officially in Beta as of Apr '15)
See:
http://www.mongodb.com/partners/cloud/microsoft
or
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/announcing-new-mongodb-instances-on-microsoft-azure/
See (including pricing):
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/marketplace/partners/mongolab/mongolab/
My first choice is AzureTables because SAAS model and low cost and SLA 99.99% http://alexandrebrisebois.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/what-if-20000-windows-azure-storage-transactions-per-second-isnt-enough/
some limits..
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/jj553018.aspx
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/pricing/calculator/?scenario=data-management
or AzureSQL for small business
DocumentDB
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/services/documentdb/
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/documentdb-limits/
second choice is many cloud providers including Amazon offer S3
or Google tables https://developers.google.com/bigquery/pricing
nTH choice manage the SHOW all by myself have no sleep MongoDB well I will look again the first two SAAS
My choice if I am running "CLOUD" I will go for SAAS model as much as possible "RENT-IT"...
The question is what my app needs is it AzureTables or DocumentDB or AzureSQL
DocumentDB documentation
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/services/documentdb/
How Azure pricing works
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/documentdb/
this is fun
http://www.documentdb.com/sql/demo
At Build 2016 it was announced that DocumentDB would support all MongoDB drivers. This solves some of the lack of tooling issues with DocDB and also makes it easier to migrate Mongo apps.
Above answers are all good - but the real answer depends on what your requirements are. You need to understand what size of data you are processing, what types of operations you want to perform on the data and then select the solution that meets your needs.
One thing to remember is Azure Table Storage doesn't support complex data types.It supports every property in entity to be a String or number or boolean or date etc.
One can't store an object against a key,which i feel is must for NoSql DB.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/storageservices/fileservices/understanding-the-table-service-data-model scroll to Property Types

Windows Azure TDS emulation on a production non-Azure IIS server

I am developing a c# web application that will be hosted in Windows Azure and use Table Data Storage (TDS).
I want to architect my application such that I can also (as an option) deploy the application to a traditional IIS server with some other NoSql back-end. Basically, I want to give my customers the option to either pay me in the software as a service model, OR purchase a license of my application that they can install on a (non-azure) production server of their own.
How can I best architect my data layer and middle tier to achieve both goals?
I will likely need a Windows Azure Worker Role and an Azure Queue. How complicated is to replicate these? Can I substitue a custom Windows Service and some other queuing technology?
How I can the entities in my data model be written such that I can deploy to Azure TDS or some other storage when not deploying to Azure? Would MongoDB or similar be useful for this?
Surely there is a way to architect for Azure without being married to it.
I will likely need a Windows Azure Worker Role and an Azure Queue. How complicated is to replicate these? Can I substitue a custom Windows Service and some other queuing technology?
Yes - a Windows service with some other queuing technology would fit this reasonably well - and worker roles have a main/Run loop which is easy to use within a Windows Service.
How I can the entities in my data model be written such that I can deploy to Azure TDS or some other storage when not deploying to Azure? Would MongoDB or similar be useful for this?
NoSql is a general term encapsulating lots of different technologies. I think Azure TDS currently belongs to the Key-Value store family of NoSql, while MongoDB is more of a document database offering much richer functionality than TDS - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL_(concept). For mimmicking Azure TDS I think maybe a variant of something like Redis might work (although I believe Redis itself has wider functionality then TDS currently)
In general, it depends on the shape of your data, but I suspect if you can fit it in Azure TDS, then you'll be able to fit it into your choice of other storage too.
Surely there is a way to architect for Azure without being married to it.
Yes - as you've suggested in your question, you can architect your app so it can work on other technologies instead. In fact, this is quite a similar challenge to the traditional SQL data abstraction methods. However, I think there are a few places where you'll find TDS pushing you in certain
directions which won't fit well with other stores - e.g. Azure pushes you much more towards data replication; has very specific rules on keys; offers high performance using very specific mechanisms; and offers limited transaction integrity in very specific situations. These factors may mean that you do have to indeed change some middle tier layers as well as some data layers in order to get the most out of your app in both its Azure and non-Azure variations.
One other thought - It might be easier to offer your clients a multitenant SaaS version on Azure, and a singletenant version hosted on Azure - but this does depend on the clients!
I found a viable solution. I found that I can use EF Code First with SQL Server or SQL CE if I design my entities with the same PartitionKey & RowKey compound key structure that Azure Table Storage requires.
With a little help from Lokad Cloud (http://code.google.com/p/lokad-cloud/) to perform the interaction with Azure Table Storage, I was able to craft a common DataContext that provides crud operations against either EF's DbContext OR Lokad's TableStorageProvider.
I even found a nice way to manage relationships between entities and lazy-load them properly.
The solution is a bit complex and needs more testing. I will blog about it and post the link here when ready.