My fear is that this seems like a cover excuse for moving off MySQL. The bug will be too hard and they’ll move off. They will choose SQLServer and take a lot of time to convert and then have even more outages.
this is classic Microsoft. spend a ton of money for something very valuable -- in this case virtually all developer marketshare -- and then casually pedal it into the ground while you lie about the KPI's to C levels (IIS marketshare on netcraft as a function of parked websites at GoDaddy to dominate over Apache) and keep it on life support with other revenue streams (XBox) for the next 16 quarters until it becomes a repulsive enough carbuncle to shareholders that it gets the axe (Microsoft phone.) then in a year, limp into the barn with another product nobody else but you could afford to buy (minecraft) and slowly turn it into a KPI farm for Microsoft account metrics to drive some other failing product (Azure) and keep the C level happy while you alienate virtually every player with mechanics or requirements they hate.
galera has lower max writes/sec than a traditional async single master because it's a cluster. the other members of the cluster need to ack the writes, and all members are doing all the writes, so adding machines does not increase your max writes
They don’t know Microsoft for anything other than ruining Minecraft. They didn’t know Microsoft made the Xbox or even Windows.
They made this statement after Microsoft forced them to migrate their account they’ve had for 5 years to a Microsoft account. That broke their computer for a few days and reset their games. For no useful reason.
I doubt they have enough to prove wrt SQL Server to make it worth going through that again.
If you meant that and I misunderstood, the other issue is that you don’t migrate to a different RDBMS. You rewrite half of the app and then spend a couple years fixing issues.
I would argue it’s more performant than vanilla MySQL and it supports multiple write masters using peer to peer transactional replication an enterprise license feature (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/re...)
There are certainly some very niche use cases where you need it, but there’s a reason why tech stacks don’t use sqlserver. I think there are better ways to handle durable transactions and redundancy than using sql enterprise with sql‘s replication.
Nothing I have seen about Azure SQL fills me with confidence about their technical capabilities.
Performance at all tiers is woeful, the networking connectivity is madness, and disaster recovery doesn't.
"Ping" it using a trivial query such as "SELECT 1" a thousand times in a row and draw a histogram. Or just eyeball the numbers. I did this recently and had response times over 12 milliseconds regularly. For comparison, a small and cheap IaaS VM running SQL Server can get down to the 150 microsecond range and stay there.
For this 100x degradation in performance you get the privilege of paying several times the cost of an IaaS VM + SQL license.
Azure SQL proxies connections. I mean sure, the documentation says that they can do a "redirect" instead of a proxy, but not if you use any of their "private" network connection options. You would think that is some sort of simple IP header change implemented by the switching gear in hardware, but you'd be wrong -- it tunnels through what is essentially a VPN -- with all of the predictable issues. These tunnel VMs don't have accelerated networking turned on, for example. So you can have "business critical" tier on one end, and huge VMs with accelerated networking on the other end, but the traffic in between is being routed through some 1 vCPU virtual router appliance processing packets in software.
Anyone with database admin rights can alter firewall rules via SQL commands. These are via SQL Server accounts and hence they're just a username and password, no MFA or anything. If you can find a SQL injection vulnerability you can punch a hole through the "firewall". Brilliant.
The firewall supports IPv4 only, and uses different CIDR syntax to everything else in Azure. It doesn't support Service tags, or logging, or monitoring, or anything really. It exists only to tick a checkbox.
Unlike most other Azure services, SQL doesn't integrate with Azure Active Directory or RBAC properly. So for example you can have one AAD group as the SQL Admin. No other rights, no list of principal IDs... just one admin group. All other delegated permissions must be done through SQL commands, blocking the use of ARM templates, Policy, custom roles, etc...
If you delete an Azure SQL Server instance, it deletes all backups associated with it. Sure, they recommend that you put a "delete lock" on the server, but then most administrative operations become impossible because you can't then delete any child objects. And even if you do create a delete lock, that can just be deleted. There is no way to say "backups cannot be deleted for at least 'x' days", even though the underlying storage accounts support this feature.
DISCLAIMER: Some of the above may have changed since I last checked, always read the documentation and/or verify with support if your data matters to you.
That... is a massive footgun. Essentially a 1-click method to destroy your business.
I'll set up delete locks ASAP, thanks for the tip.