In their pricing they list iis/sql server only possible under large instances:
http://aws.amazon.com/windows/
which costs upwards of $800 per month.
However several how-to blog posts show using AMIs with IIS/SQL server with small instances (which presumably costs about 80 dollars a month).
http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/wordpress-in-the-cloud-with-ec2-and-wpi
http://blogs.iis.net/bills/archive/2009/01/13/how-to-run-windows-amp-iis-in-the-cloud-on-amazon-ec2-in-15-mins.aspx
I wonder if this has licensing issues. Does any one know if this is legit (i.e. doesn't break TOS) and if so, is the pricing the same for IIS/SQL vs. normal windows small instances? (I ask because they have seperate pricing for larger instances.)
According to your link, windows/sql/iis will work on any instance:
On-Demand Instances
SQL Server Express Edition, Microsoft
IIS and ASP.NET can be used on any
Amazon EC2 instance running Windows
Server for no additional cost.
Reserved instances are always large and are like buying a dedicated server but you don't necessarily need one of those.
It is possible and relatively easy to set up. The one tricky part is that small instances are all 32 bit and the first machine image (AMI) that pops up with IIS and SQL Server Express is a 64 bit image. When first create the instance you get a page of popular AMIs and the only one with SQL Server Express is the 64 bit image. You have to search for a 32 bit version. I am using this 32 bit AMI with a small instance and it works fine: Windows-Server2008-i386-SqlExpress-v103 (ami-c5e40dac).
Also by default all the SQL services are disabled so you have to go into services and enable them (SQL Server, SQL Server Browser, SQL Server Agent...).
Related
I have a MS Access Database that I need to share with multiple users in the entire state. Right now I split the database and placed the backend on a shared network drive and distributed the front end, but the issue I'm having is that offices further away can't enter a record in a timely manner (one office took over 2 hours).
We do have SharePoint, but it's on a 2010 server and our MS Access is 2013 and I'm told because of this, access won't link up to SharePoint and this is not an option.
Someone in my office mentioned something about replicating a database...is this something that will work? If not, are there any suggestions?
Replication in Access was killed in Access 2007.
SharePoint is not an option except if you start from scratch, and the shared lists and/or various web apps you can create are seriously limited compared to your present desktop solution.
Basically, you have three options:
Upgrade your WAN to 100 Mbit/s low-latency quality fibre connection
Create a Terminal Server hosting your application. Remote users will access this via standard Remote Desktop Connection
Upgrade your backend to SQL Server Express (free) and set up an in-house or outsourced server hosting this
The first options require zero coding, while the last takes a little but not much, and that is well documentated (just bing/google on this).
We want to install Dynamics CRM 2013 for 10 users. We are thinking about 2 approaches:
Install only one instance of CRM and SQL Server on two separate servers machines. CRM server machine will have front end server role and SQL Server machine will have back end server role. All 10 users will browse and work on same instance of CRM.
Install SQL Server on a separate machine and install CRM on the machines of all the 10 users. All 10 CRM instances will point to the same organization created on SQL Server. Each users will use CRM installed on their own system but their customizations will be published on one organisation since all CRMs are pointing to the same organisation.
Could anyone let me know which approach will be better in terms of performance.
Update after the reply of Draiden and Kye:
All 10 machines will be used only for development and IFD or NLB will never be required.
In one of our previous projects, we had used the approach of 1SQL-SSRS and 1CRM (Full server). During peak development periods when around 8 users were connected to CRM doing customization, memory usage of CRM server would go to around 85% - 95%. At this point, CRM used to become non-responsive.
In order to avoid the high memory usage, we are thinking of approach 2 where CRM memory usage will be distributed among multiple machines. Also if someone wants to debug a plugin, they will debug on their own CRM (and will not block others). Having one SQL Server in the backend will enable developers to share the same data. Also their customization changes will be published on one central organization.
The second solutions involves the creation of a front-end server for each user? I don't think that is a viable (really nice way) to install crm. Also If you will be in the situation of setup something else, like IFD you will need to install and setup a NLB and teach everyone to change the url.
The first approach you are suggesting is the better one, but usually you go with 2 servers, 1 sql and 1 crm full installation. Performance wise shouldn't make much of a difference since the user using the system will be just 10 people.
So I would say that solution 1 doesn't help you much, because you still keep the db an the backend on the same machine,
while solution 2 still has a bottleneck when you are doing SQL operations, plus CRM is quite demanding, and let run the server on a user machine will choke it.
Go with a more traditional approach.
1 SQL-SSRS and 1 CRM, or if you think that you will have performance issues go with 1 SQL-SSRS, 1 Back-End server a NLB and as many front-end you want/need.
Again for 10 users having multiple front end server doesn't make much sense.
Please refer to this TechNet article for supported configurations.
For best performance, you will want to use a multi-server architecture. Furthermore, in order to have the data be shared between the users, they would need to be using the same environment.
Could anyone let me know which approach will be better in terms of
performance.
I don't think option 2 is viable, as it means installing the CRM web server on 10 machines:
Running IIS on client machines will start using up memory your end
users should be using for desktop applications.
If you ever need to scale up the front end machines, you'll need to
do this 10 times.
Since your users may not be using CRM all day, IIS will eventually
recycle, making the first time a user access the site seem slower
then expected.
I would install the CRM webs server and database on separate machines, following the minimum recommended hardware requirements.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh699840(v=crm.6).aspx
Update - If your requirement is around a development environment, I would use two servers for Production and two servers for Test (to mimic Production).
For the development environment - I'd ask developers to install CRM and SQL locally so that they can debug their own code, and then push their finished code to a central repository such as Github or TFS. It would then be someone's (or something's) role to pull down updated code, prepare and CRM solution and deploy to the next environment.
Does anyone know if there are any competing hosting alternatives I can explore other than Amazon Web Services for running very small instances of Windows virtual machines? I have used AWS for years but am thinking that it might be worth-while to see if there are better alternatives.
In particular, the scenario I have is this: I have created a Windows virtual machine image with the applications and configuration I want and then spin up VMs based on that image as I need from on the AWS spot market. I can go weeks at a time without needing any virtual machines but then will spin up 20 VMs for a few hours to do a particular job. I typically pay around .61 cents an hour per micro Windows VM running on AWS (keep in mind that the AWS spot market is way cheaper than reserved instances).
Does Microsoft Azure or any other service support a similar scenario? I don't mind paying a little more if the performance and such is better. However, it is absolutely critical that I can set things up so I only have to pay for VMs when I actually need them rather than keep paying for VMs that aren't in use.
Microsoft Azure has the capability you are looking for. You can upload your own images and then quickly deploy extra-small machines based on it. On Azure you can turf off the VM's through the Azure portal after you are finished with them and you will not be charged. Make sure that you do it through the portal and not the windows session or you will continue to be billed.
Check out this link for pricing information:
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/virtual-machines/
You can follow these steps to upload your image to your azure account:
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/virtual-machines-create-upload-vhd-windows-server/
Also, you can scale up very easy in the azure portal so this might help reduce your need for spinning up multiple machines.
The title pretty much says it. Can a micro instance (which only has 613MB of RAM) run Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server without running out of memory? My company wants to use EC2 to host our site, but we want to keep costs low during development.
I think Windows Micro (613MB RAM) instances are great for their true cloud purposes: namely on-demand access to compute power for transient activities, such as training environments or basic dev/playground/lab activities. For running an actual website, with real clients and potentially some load, you really can't go less than a small instance size. Costs aren't too bad if you buy a Small Reserved Instance, but don't go too cheap and try to use the Micro in production.
I have a client that is paying $1500 per month for hosting of 1 website (1 domain name, email is hosted elsewhere). The website is pretty low traffic. Like, 100 unique visitors a week. The only catch (and why it is so expensive) is that their database is 15 GB, and is replicated from the hosting company to inside my small companies office.
Inside the office, there is a desktop application that hits the internal database quite a bit. From the website, some data is entered into THAT version of the database. Replication keeps both databases in synch on a schedule of every 5 minutes.
My client has a T1 that runs into their office. I want to knock out the hosting provider altogether, host their website from a server they already have (more than capable of handling this website), and dump the replication altogether. This would save them $1500 per month, and for a company of 5, it would really make a difference to them.
Assuming I already have a backup strategy in place (way to move a copy of the DB offsite every day), what are the problems with this?
Support? they can reboot their server as easily as the hosting provider can.
What if server goes down for good? There is a duplicate that I can bring up in a couple of hours, and that is all the level of service they really require.
What am I missing here? I want to save them money, but I don't want to screw them over...
EDIT: Some of the answers and comments make it clear that I myself wasn't clear. My client (company A, not a hosting provider) is paying company B to host their website. The website has a database (MS SQL Server 2000) that is 15 GB. That SQL Server DB is being replicated back to a server # company A.
Company B is charging Company A $1500 per month for this service.
Company A already has a T1 for connectivity to the internet. They are located inside of a run of the mill business park.
I am proposing doing away with any outside hosting, getting a DNS provider to point the website to Company A's static IP and hosting the website on a server inside Company A. Then there would be no need for any replication at all, and they wouldn't be paying company B $1500 per month.
I hope that explains it. I'm going to re-read and comment on all the current answers.
Really, any advice is very appreciated.
Sounds to me like your only risk in moving the server in-house is if your T1 goes down. If you have a backup strategy in place for that, go for it.
The other option is to co-loc your own server with your own SQL Server licence on it. Hosting companies charge a lot for hosting SQL Server databases because they have to pay per-CPU licencing for it. So they build up a powerful server to serve lots of client's databases, but then SQL Server offers no way to do useage accounting so they only way they can bill/screw you is on database size.
Sounds like the traffic is low enough on your site you can get a dual core server, a 1 CPU licence of SQL Server for a one-off cost of a few thousand dollars and then you're only paying the monthly co-loc price.
A hosting provider can monitor the server 24x7. What if the server crashes at 8 pm? I the people at the small company are not working around the clock?
Depends on the service this DB is providing. What are the requirements to its uptime?
Database replication isn;t that expensive for bandwidth - well, assuming you're not doing a hotcopy of the entire DB files across the link that is.
Check out log shipping, or any of the supported replication options that will replicate the DB using minimal bandwidth. (you never said what the DB was, so I can't comment further there)
I would move to the new server and keep replication. At the very least, if you're really worried about data loss, then get another server in the same facility and copy across to that one - even if you copy 15Gb every 5 minutes, it'll be using non-chargeable bandwidth without even going outside the switch they're connected to.