Where would you host your SQL database?

[cloudcomputing (RichHersey)]

Advertisement

Close

If you were looking to cloud host your SQL, who would you consider and why?

Advertisement

Close

Let’s say you were starting small, with only a couple of users and a very small amount of data, but had the potential to grow the number of users to hundreds and terabytes of data. Who would you start with and would they be able to grow with you? Would it be a good idea to migrate at a certain benchmark or start with the company who can take you all the way?

Advertisement

Close

What about support for SQL? Who can cloud host SQL and give you the support you need?

Does the geographic location of the cloud host matter to you? How does that affect latency?

What about geographic redundancy? Backups? Do you keep a local copy?

Lots and lots of cloud hosting questions and I look forward to everyone’s responses!

Thanks!

[NetworkNerd]

I’d probably look at Azure or Rackspace .

As far as support goes, I know Rackspace has phenomenal support. We’ve used them extensively for hosting of cloud servers and cloud sites and always had a great experience with support. Even chat support for pre-Sales stuff is great. I’m not 100% sure how Rackspace’s hosted SQL offering works when you want to scale up, but I know they have capacity to scale just about anything.

In terms of scalability, Azure is very much a pay-as-you-grow service, so you can turn the knobs up when you need more performance as time passes. I have not had to deal much with their support as we only use Azure for Visual Studio online, but I’m sure Greg can give you more feedback on the support aspect.

@gregory-for-microsoft

[NetworkNerd]

And most of the hosting providers are going to offer some sort of backup solution as an option with their product.

[alexbub]

Azure is the way to go, although you’re likely going to struggle with support there. As far as ease of use and redundancy, you’re not going to beat them. Also, you can get (I think) a month of free use from Azure so that you can test your setup and make sure it performs to spec. Azure is also extremely scalable when it comes to growing with you.

[apsutcliffe (Bottman)]

@alex.cwptech

… you can get (I think) a month of free use from Azure so that you can test your setup and make sure it performs to spec. Azure is also extremely scalable when it comes to growing with you.

You can open a free account, then convert it to a paid account, saving any work that you’ve done.

Basic DBs are easily managed by most people; however, if you are working with something that’s a bit more complex, you really need to have the experience, as there is not the amount of functionality that would be in SQL Studio.

You also have the options to manage a web based frontend, but I had a number of issues with that, that I never did get solved.

[verity-eclipse]

Hi Rich,

This product sheet and infographic may help to answer some of your questions.

We recommend Microsoft Azure but can assist you throughout this move to ensure that you have the support that you need.

If you’d like to chat further please let me know

Verity

[thomaslarock]

I’d go to Azure, no question.

[gregory-for-microsoft]

Azure is a great choice for this and it really has all the ability to scale to highest of heights, including the geographic redundancy you are seeking. Especially if you are just starting out you want to choose wisely and I feel you cannot beat Azure and what it offers.

Free Trial

Create Your Azure Free Account Today | Microsoft Azure

Support options and plans - you can pay for support if you feel you need it during your time with Azure or if you feel you know SQL well enough you can just use the basic support when needed.

Azure Support Options | Microsoft Azure

Azure Support Plans Comparison | Microsoft Azure

As for the other options you are best served going to the preverbal horses mouth and get on with MS Azure from the start.
Just my 2 cents and I would also like to point you to Microsoft’s Virtual Academy if you want to learn this for yourself.

Training

[alexakselrod (Alex49381)]

AWS RDS and Azure should be your first 2 choices.

What features do you need? You loose some functionality when SQL is hosted on multi tenant system so find out first. Consider how you will connect to it, its never a good idea to connect to SQL as your endpoint, web and app server should be in front of it.

[jimmy-t]

I’m using Digital Ocean for my hosting with OmniKraft. I’ve been using for almost a year and haven’t had an issue with their services.

[kellycorbin (Grux)]

I would not host SQL in the cloud. I personally would never consider it as an option.

To many things to go horribly sideways to risk this as an option. Also i would add that if this is any type of SQL that contains any type of personally Identifiable information, for clients, or end users, or data that has any type of governance over it such as HIPPA, or SOX or any type of financial data, I would never allow any of that stuff out to the cloud. I do not have any faith in cloud services.

If none of the data has any PI data or financial stuff… maybe you are tracking dogs with brown eys or how many birds in each tree at the place of business… then maybe i would look at hosting. but generally no, I would never consider hosting sql in the cloud.

[Carl-Holzhauer]

^ +1

Agreed

[alexakselrod (Alex49381)]

@kellycorbin

I would not host SQL in the cloud. I personally would never consider it as an option.

To many things to go horribly sideways to risk this as an option. Also i would add that if this is any type of SQL that contains any type of personally Identifiable information, for clients, or end users, or data that has any type of governance over it such as HIPPA, or SOX or any type of financial data, I would never allow any of that stuff out to the cloud. I do not have any faith in cloud services.

If none of the data has any PI data or financial stuff… maybe you are tracking dogs with brown eys or how many birds in each tree at the place of business… then maybe i would look at hosting. but generally no, I would never consider hosting sql in the cloud.

I would say the opposite, it is much easier to achieve secure and compliant environment is the cloud then it is onsite. What exactly about the cloud that scares you ?

[dthoma (David9452)]

Holding on to credit card data? Then follow the standards… PCI Security Standards Council – Protect Payment Data with Industry-driven Security Standards, Training, and Programs

[kellycorbin (Grux)]

@alexakselrod

@kellycorbin

I would not host SQL in the cloud. I personally would never consider it as an option.

To many things to go horribly sideways to risk this as an option. Also i would add that if this is any type of SQL that contains any type of personally Identifiable information, for clients, or end users, or data that has any type of governance over it such as HIPPA, or SOX or any type of financial data, I would never allow any of that stuff out to the cloud. I do not have any faith in cloud services.

If none of the data has any PI data or financial stuff… maybe you are tracking dogs with brown eys or how many birds in each tree at the place of business… then maybe i would look at hosting. but generally no, I would never consider hosting sql in the cloud.

I would say the opposite, it is much easier to achieve secure and compliant environment is the cloud then it is onsite. What exactly about the cloud that scares you ?

what+scares me is that by going to cloud I would now have to “trust” that provider explicitly with information that if stolen could land the company in serious hot water, for instance, to be PCI compliant the physical server cage has t have video monitoring on the front and back of the cage. sure some cloud services do this, but then you have to trust that they are watching the feeds too. I have to trust that the on site hands are going to do as asked and no more. A cloud provider here in my local area had found several staff members going through client servers and stealing data and then selling that data. (they got prosecuted)

just a lot of having to trust a place and their staff, that I have not vetted.

Say you have a bunch of SQL data that had HIPPA info for a doctor get stolen out of the cloud facility. sure some of that blame can be placed on the provider, but some of that blame will trickle down to you, because you made the decision to put sensitive data offsite in the cloud, you made the choice to explicitly “trust” a third party with your clients / customers data. to me that is never a “best practice” .

[kellycorbin (Grux)]

and yes I do wear a tin foil hat… I am extremely paranoid when it comes to handling of client / customer data. even our own internal data, that as an IT person, we should try to do every thing we can in our power to protect the data we are entrusted with.

in the same way a doctor of medicine takes an oath to “do no harm” so should we, the IT people take a similar oath, not sure how it would be worded though

[alexakselrod (Alex49381)]

@kellycorbin

@alexakselrod

@kellycorbin

I would not host SQL in the cloud. I personally would never consider it as an option.

To many things to go horribly sideways to risk this as an option. Also i would add that if this is any type of SQL that contains any type of personally Identifiable information, for clients, or end users, or data that has any type of governance over it such as HIPPA, or SOX or any type of financial data, I would never allow any of that stuff out to the cloud. I do not have any faith in cloud services.

If none of the data has any PI data or financial stuff… maybe you are tracking dogs with brown eys or how many birds in each tree at the place of business… then maybe i would look at hosting. but generally no, I would never consider hosting sql in the cloud.

I would say the opposite, it is much easier to achieve secure and compliant environment is the cloud then it is onsite. What exactly about the cloud that scares you ?

what+scares me is that by going to cloud I would now have to “trust” that provider explicitly with information that if stolen could land the company in serious hot water, for instance, to be PCI compliant the physical server cage has t have video monitoring on the front and back of the cage. sure some cloud services do this, but then you have to trust that they are watching the feeds too. I have to trust that the on site hands are going to do as asked and no more. A cloud provider here in my local area had found several staff members going through client servers and stealing data and then selling that data. (they got prosecuted)

just a lot of having to trust a place and their staff, that I have not vetted.

Say you have a bunch of SQL data that had HIPPA info for a doctor get stolen out of the cloud facility. sure some of that blame can be placed on the provider, but some of that blame will trickle down to you, because you made the decision to put sensitive data offsite in the cloud, you made the choice to explicitly “trust” a third party with your clients / customers data. to me that is never a “best practice” .

I don’t see how the risk is higher than having data on site including replication and offsite backup. All cloud AND ONSITE deployments should include HSM. Key possession is very important, if your provider uses server side encryption than you are not doing job properly and have false sense of security. Physical location of data is becoming less relevant what matters is how you protect it. If your company can purchase every IDS/IPS hardware AWS has and employ same level of expertise then by all means keep it close to you. If you run security with commodity tools and off the shelf firewall and multifunction as security engineer, then let someone else do it who does it for living.

[tahin]

I would host it in Hawaii. And I’d forget to turn on any sort of remote protocol. Ugh, SQL is down… I guess I need to go over there…

[kellycorbin (Grux)]

@alexakselrod

@kellycorbin

@alexakselrod

@kellycorbin

I would not host SQL in the cloud. I personally would never consider it as an option.

To many things to go horribly sideways to risk this as an option. Also i would add that if this is any type of SQL that contains any type of personally Identifiable information, for clients, or end users, or data that has any type of governance over it such as HIPPA, or SOX or any type of financial data, I would never allow any of that stuff out to the cloud. I do not have any faith in cloud services.

If none of the data has any PI data or financial stuff… maybe you are tracking dogs with brown eys or how many birds in each tree at the place of business… then maybe i would look at hosting. but generally no, I would never consider hosting sql in the cloud.

I would say the opposite, it is much easier to achieve secure and compliant environment is the cloud then it is onsite. What exactly about the cloud that scares you ?

what+scares me is that by going to cloud I would now have to “trust” that provider explicitly with information that if stolen could land the company in serious hot water, for instance, to be PCI compliant the physical server cage has t have video monitoring on the front and back of the cage. sure some cloud services do this, but then you have to trust that they are watching the feeds too. I have to trust that the on site hands are going to do as asked and no more. A cloud provider here in my local area had found several staff members going through client servers and stealing data and then selling that data. (they got prosecuted)

just a lot of having to trust a place and their staff, that I have not vetted.

Say you have a bunch of SQL data that had HIPPA info for a doctor get stolen out of the cloud facility. sure some of that blame can be placed on the provider, but some of that blame will trickle down to you, because you made the decision to put sensitive data offsite in the cloud, you made the choice to explicitly “trust” a third party with your clients / customers data. to me that is never a “best practice” .

I don’t see how the risk is higher than having data on site including replication and offsite backup. All cloud AND ONSITE deployments should include HSM. Key possession is very important, if your provider uses server side encryption than you are not doing job properly and have false sense of security. Physical location of data is becoming less relevant what matters is how you protect it. If your company can purchase every IDS/IPS hardware AWS has and employ same level of expertise then by all means keep it close to you. If you run security with commodity tools and off the shelf firewall and multifunction as security engineer, then let someone else do it who does it for living.

I will agree with much of what you said. but I am still the guy in the room that is gonna hold the data as close to local as I can. We are lucky in that where i am now we can replicate our data between 4 locations 3 locations in the US and 1 location In the southern hemisphere. Its not the most ideal situation, and I would like to change some stuff around, but it was all set up and configured prior to my arrival. I will say that even though we do not have a “traditional” DR site plane etc… It does work very well. just does not follow the normal route of doing DR. it also avoids the cloud for our sensitive data, (we do have some stuff stored in the cloud for outside sales people to work with) but it is not any type of PI data or accounting data. We do own each of the remote replication sites. so replication is all in house facility.

I will even say that cloud is good for some things, and to me, my opinion is to not trust cloud for PI data. yes i am paranoid. and i am fine with that…

[alexakselrod (Alex49381)]

@kellycorbin

@alexakselrod

@kellycorbin

@alexakselrod

@kellycorbin

I would not host SQL in the cloud. I personally would never consider it as an option.

To many things to go horribly sideways to risk this as an option. Also i would add that if this is any type of SQL that contains any type of personally Identifiable information, for clients, or end users, or data that has any type of governance over it such as HIPPA, or SOX or any type of financial data, I would never allow any of that stuff out to the cloud. I do not have any faith in cloud services.

If none of the data has any PI data or financial stuff… maybe you are tracking dogs with brown eys or how many birds in each tree at the place of business… then maybe i would look at hosting. but generally no, I would never consider hosting sql in the cloud.

I would say the opposite, it is much easier to achieve secure and compliant environment is the cloud then it is onsite. What exactly about the cloud that scares you ?

what+scares me is that by going to cloud I would now have to “trust” that provider explicitly with information that if stolen could land the company in serious hot water, for instance, to be PCI compliant the physical server cage has t have video monitoring on the front and back of the cage. sure some cloud services do this, but then you have to trust that they are watching the feeds too. I have to trust that the on site hands are going to do as asked and no more. A cloud provider here in my local area had found several staff members going through client servers and stealing data and then selling that data. (they got prosecuted)

just a lot of having to trust a place and their staff, that I have not vetted.

Say you have a bunch of SQL data that had HIPPA info for a doctor get stolen out of the cloud facility. sure some of that blame can be placed on the provider, but some of that blame will trickle down to you, because you made the decision to put sensitive data offsite in the cloud, you made the choice to explicitly “trust” a third party with your clients / customers data. to me that is never a “best practice” .

I don’t see how the risk is higher than having data on site including replication and offsite backup. All cloud AND ONSITE deployments should include HSM. Key possession is very important, if your provider uses server side encryption than you are not doing job properly and have false sense of security. Physical location of data is becoming less relevant what matters is how you protect it. If your company can purchase every IDS/IPS hardware AWS has and employ same level of expertise then by all means keep it close to you. If you run security with commodity tools and off the shelf firewall and multifunction as security engineer, then let someone else do it who does it for living.

I will agree with much of what you said. but I am still the guy in the room that is gonna hold the data as close to local as I can. We are lucky in that where i am now we can replicate our data between 4 locations 3 locations in the US and 1 location In the southern hemisphere. Its not the most ideal situation, and I would like to change some stuff around, but it was all set up and configured prior to my arrival. I will say that even though we do not have a “traditional” DR site plane etc… It does work very well. just does not follow the normal route of doing DR. it also avoids the cloud for our sensitive data, (we do have some stuff stored in the cloud for outside sales people to work with) but it is not any type of PI data or accounting data. We do own each of the remote replication sites. so replication is all in house facility.

I will even say that cloud is good for some things, and to me, my opinion is to not trust cloud for PI data. yes i am paranoid. and i am fine with that…

Im not trying to say that one approach is correct while the other is not. Physical security is important but not as much as it used to be. Looking at major breaches over the last 5 years none of them included pulling a hard drive out of a server. Attacks are orchestrated from across oceans and most effective tool is to reduce your attack surface, educate your employees and deploy the best IDS/IPS solution money can buy.