David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

An Update to Introducing the Azure Services Platform  
# Monday, June 01, 2009
 
Microsoft has made some important updates to various parts of the Azure Services Platform. Accordingly, I've updated the overview white paper I wrote on Azure last fall. The new version is available here.

The biggest change is in SQL Data Services, which now will provide a standard relational datastore. This is really important, as the absence of relational storage was a gaping hole in the original announcement. It's great to see that Microsoft is fixing this.


6 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Awesome as usual!!! Paper outweighs all other stuff out there on Azure. One question, going forward how will one choose among Storage services & SDS. Has microsoft again made a mistake of building something (storage services) that might be phased out after v1.
 

I'm glad the paper is useful for you, Niraj. About storage: Windows Azure Storage and SDS address quite distinct scenarios. SDS is a traditional relational database, while Windows Azure Storage provides blobs, queues, and tables.

Blobs and queues are obviously different from relational storage, and even though they're called "tables", Windows Azure Storage tables in fact provide scale-out storage. They're more like Amazon's Simple DB or Google AppEngine's Datastore than relational tables, and they're intended primarily for scenarios that require working with really large amounts of data. I wouldn't expect any of these things to be phased out--each one has a distinct purpose.
 

Adding SQL data storage to the Azure Hash table storage is needed to deal with legacy apps. But business is fasts moving from transactional to emotional by way of sentiment analytics captured in unstructured fashion. What will this mean for the Visual Studio Developer? A new persistence model selected when implementing an app; select SQL data for real time integrity; select Hash tables for massive volume Sharded over multiple data stores?
 

I basically agree: Scale-out storage, e.g., Windows Azure Storage tables, will often be the right answer for really huge data, as they let you avoid creating and managing your own sharded environment. Traditional relational data will be the best choice whenever possible, though, because it offers so much more functionality than the scale-out mechanisms.

But I'm not at all convinced that relational storage is purely (or even mostly) for legacy apps. Why wouldn't a new app use relational storage whenever possible? Unless the app needs massive data scalability (and most apps don't), relational storage is still more attractive.
 

Good point on realtional storage. My point is, try selling transactional apps, few businesses are buying, because there is not enough new added value over current legacy apps. Meanwhile the world has moved onto apps guided by analytics data and sentiment analysis. Case in point Google knows far more about its Google Docs users than Microsoft knows about its Windows Office customers. The difference being all the analytics data captured on the web. Azure needs to empower developers to code the business basic while providing the sentiment analysis to really know how the apps are being used, can be improved. Same applies to web stores, we need to empower real time decision making around transactions. We need buckets of data to see patterns. Now we differentiate a new generation of apps and enterprises will buy added value.
 

Clive, you're really arguing that ISVs should prefer creating new SaaS applications over new on-premises apps. I largely agree: In lots of cases, such as those you name, cloud-based apps can provide more value. If these SaaS apps need massive data scale, using standard relational storage won't work.

And many on-premises software markets, such as those you characterize as transactional, are quite mature--selling new stuff is hard. Still, enterprises that want to build custom apps for their own use don't need massive scale. For these--and I believe there will be lots of them--familiar relational storage will be a better choice.
 

Post a Comment


<< Home