6 ms·

because of cost. MariaDB helps us to reduce cost, keep in mind that our storage needs are minimal. In any case if you can afford SQL server, you should go for i

by cpard 12y ago

because of cost. MariaDB helps us to reduce cost, keep in mind that our storage needs are minimal. In any case if you can afford SQL server, you should go for it.

NicoJuicy 12y ago
Any downsides of using MySQL instead of SQL Server in the development stage?
- cpard 12y ago
  I'd say that the main downside is the time/effort to setup and maintain, especially as you scale up. At the end you should always judge based on your app and its requirements.
spo81rty 12y ago
SQL Azure starts at $5 a month. Hosting a couple linux VMs for MariaDB would be a lot more expensive. SQL Azure is extremely affordable even as you scale up and it is fully managed. For basic SQL usage it is awesome and the value is unbeatable.
- cpard 12y ago
  if you are in the situation to need dedicaded VMs for MariaDB then you should probably go for SQL Azure. Here this is not the case, the requirements for the DB are minimal and we already have 2 VMs running for the availability set. As I said, at the end you need to judge based on the specific needs of your app/product.
- bad_user 12y ago
  Actually they are retiring the "Web and Business" pricing plans, which were charging for storage size and introducing a new pricing plan that charges for both storage size and "Database Throughput Units", which kind of obscures what they are charging for - something related to transactions volume and based on my experience with other "cloud hosted" databases, I can guarantee you that it gets pretty freaking expensive. The smartest thing to do is to never rely on a particular service of a cloud provider. For example we once made the choice of using Amazon's DynamoDB, which is great in the beginning, but at some points along with scale issues the costs went through the roof (DynamoDB also charges for "throughput capacity") and we just switched to Cassandra - but we planned for this migration ever since the beginning. And this is the problem with cloud providers - the pricing schemes on these services are designed to hook you with affordable prices in the beginning, but later on as your business grows they get much more expensive than hosting your own stuff. So use whatever makes you most productive, but careful about lock-in.
  - Encosia 12y ago
    Unless I misunderstood, the new DTU measure is being used to gauge relative performance between the different tiers, not for usage (or billing that usage).
  - spo81rty 12y ago
    But in this case SQL Azure is not something you can get locked in on. You can switch to normal SQL Server at anytime away from Azure.
ultimape 12y ago
Have you looked into Google's managed mysql or nosql options? I'd be curious to see how they compare to what you are doing on azure.

by cpard 12y ago

because of cost. MariaDB helps us to reduce cost, keep in mind that our storage needs are minimal. In any case if you can afford SQL server, you should go for it.

NicoJuicy 12y ago

Any downsides of using MySQL instead of SQL Server in the development stage?

cpard 12y ago
I'd say that the main downside is the time/effort to setup and maintain, especially as you scale up. At the end you should always judge based on your app and its requirements.

spo81rty 12y ago

SQL Azure starts at $5 a month. Hosting a couple linux VMs for MariaDB would be a lot more expensive. SQL Azure is extremely affordable even as you scale up and it is fully managed. For basic SQL usage it is awesome and the value is unbeatable.

cpard 12y ago
if you are in the situation to need dedicaded VMs for MariaDB then you should probably go for SQL Azure. Here this is not the case, the requirements for the DB are minimal and we already have 2 VMs running for the availability set. As I said, at the end you need to judge based on the specific needs of your app/product.
bad_user 12y ago
Actually they are retiring the "Web and Business" pricing plans, which were charging for storage size and introducing a new pricing plan that charges for both storage size and "Database Throughput Units", which kind of obscures what they are charging for - something related to transactions volume and based on my experience with other "cloud hosted" databases, I can guarantee you that it gets pretty freaking expensive. The smartest thing to do is to never rely on a particular service of a cloud provider. For example we once made the choice of using Amazon's DynamoDB, which is great in the beginning, but at some points along with scale issues the costs went through the roof (DynamoDB also charges for "throughput capacity") and we just switched to Cassandra - but we planned for this migration ever since the beginning. And this is the problem with cloud providers - the pricing schemes on these services are designed to hook you with affordable prices in the beginning, but later on as your business grows they get much more expensive than hosting your own stuff. So use whatever makes you most productive, but careful about lock-in.
- Encosia 12y ago
  Unless I misunderstood, the new DTU measure is being used to gauge relative performance between the different tiers, not for usage (or billing that usage).
- spo81rty 12y ago
  But in this case SQL Azure is not something you can get locked in on. You can switch to normal SQL Server at anytime away from Azure.

ultimape 12y ago

Have you looked into Google's managed mysql or nosql options? I'd be curious to see how they compare to what you are doing on azure.