|
Yoda just turned me on to a UK rock band (Thunder).
Thanks. I didn't need that extra money anyway. Hang on a moment while I open Amazon in a second tab... 
|
|
|
|
|
I've always liked "An Englishman on Holiday"[^] 
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, that's the kind of stuff that's going to cost me money.
Pete, if you ever make it to the states, you're definitely buying the booze. 
|
|
|
|
|
Brit rock at its finest my friend. Glad to be of service.
|
|
|
|
|
I was surprised to see that they were basically a child of the 90s (89 doesn't count for being an 80s band) since they have a very 70s meets 80s kinda sound.
|
|
|
|
|
They certainly do. They have a sound that is a cross between Free and Magnum.
|
|
|
|
|
As a singer, Paul Rogers was one of my earliest influences. So was Steve Marriot, the difference being I could actually hit the notes that Paul sang.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Duncan wrote: was surprised to see that they were basically a child of the 90s (89 doesn't count for being an 80s band) since they have a very 70s meets 80s kinda sound.
I first saw them at Surrey Uni around 1985-86 in their previous incarnation (Terraplane[^]) and they were damn good even then.
Mind you, i hadn't discovered The Wildhearts[^] or Skyclad[^] then!
Anna ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
Are you trying to make me spend more money?
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe. 
Anna
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
I always knew you were trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
If I may drag your attention to my responses to Miss M below, I may help empty your wallet some more.
|
|
|
|
|
All a bit dark for my taste. I liked Thunder because it was rock and roll from a happier time.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Duncan wrote: I always knew you were trouble.
Ah but I didn't realise how much trouble I was until comparatively recently.
Anna
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will check 'em out, ta!
Anna ![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
Not only will I get Mr D spending more money, I shall do the same to Miss M. Buwahahahaaaa. May I also interest you in Deeexpus[^]? The guy in the middle of the picture (looks like a cross between Kirk Hammett and a Regency Monarch) is the guy I regularly jam with; the young wunderking Micky McCrystal (or Micky Crystal if you go by his stage name).
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Not only will I get Mr D spending more money, I shall do the same to Miss M. Buwahahahaaaa.
I've been called many things, but "Miss M. Buwahahahaaaa" is a new one. Should I update my LinkedIn profile now?
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: May I also interest you in Deeexpus[^]? The guy in the middle of the picture (looks like a cross between Kirk Hammett and a Regency Monarch) is the guy I regularly jam with; the young wunderking Micky McCrystal (or Micky Crystal if you go by his stage name).
Will take a look - ta!
Anna
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
I have global operations to manage but we currently have Sql Server in just one city. For some of our Asia / Pacific users, connectivity issues, bandwidth, etc. are causing performance problems.
I'm wondering if moving our Sql Server database to Azure (if in fact I'm viewing this service correctly) would be beneficial, as I would assume MS has servers across the world so that people in different regions wouldn't necessarily have to reach all the way over to a city in the U.S. to fetch data.
So, my question is twofold.
1. Am I thinking about Azure correctly, i.e. can it be "Sql Server in the cloud?"
2. What's the nightmare factor when working with Azure? Good stuff, or stay away?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - Azure can be used as SQL Server in the Cloud. There are datacenters on many continents, and Azure can be set up for high availability and redundancy, spinning up more servers on demand, geographic routing, etc. For a few years now I've been calling it the greatest thing that nobody seems to know about.
The nightmare factor when working with Azure is the opportunity for spiraling cost - operating costs that could accumulate much faster than your revenue stream. You can do a lot with Azure, but the more complex your implementation, the more cost you'll incur. SQL Azure data costs more than no-SQL Azure data, for example. Adding queues for better performance will add to costs. It's better now than it used to be because you can set limits on your cost now, but these costs sometimes encourage solution architects to design non-optimal solutions as a tradeoff to data costs.
In general, you'll need someone familiar with Azure to help get you started because it's not just clicking a button to populate a SQL Server solution to the cloud. Azure isn't just SQL Server, it's much more than that, and it can be very confusing to a newcomer. It doesn't eliminate your IT staff, but it can eliminate mundane hardware acquisition, software installs, and upgrades because Microsoft does them for you.
Azure is Microsoft's future and they're putting a lot into it and it's very competitive. Definitely worth a look.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, man. Appreciate the in depth insights.
The main thing I'm trying to understand is this - if I want our ASPAC customers to hit a database close to them, a different one for Europe and a third one for the states, do they provide some kind of magic for this, or do I end up with three sql server databases installed and having to keep them in sync via replication, etc?
If it's the latter scenario, the CIO may well keep it in house and just put servers in those regions. If I can get some distributed magic as part of the plan and the cost isn't excessive, it would eliminate the need for him to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, man. Very much appreciate you sharing your perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
Replicated Databases is a very costly option. I would use multiple databases as a very last option. You could always beef-up the database server, plan your indexes, implement indexed views for repeating queries, improve the queries and stored procedures, implement caching in your application or improve performance of the application itself.
And if you have done all of the above and it is still not solving the problem, then I would suggest you to implement some custom caching services, using Redis[^] or MongoDB[^]. Windows Azure offers geo-redundant storage locations, you could use these NoSQL files to act as an intermediate database. It will give you more flexibility and control.
And if you want to implement replication or mirroring in Windows Azure. There are two options because Windows Azure offers two types of SQL Server solutions. SQL Azure (PaaS) and SQL Server inside a VM (IaaS). SQL Azure means zero administration and maintenance at the cost of control and flexibility (We are using this as Production database). And traditional SQL Server inside a Virtual Machine means more control, better performance and complete administration (We are using this as Development database). There are 6 locations available for Azure that you may use.
To sync multiple database using SQL Azure you can use Data-Sync service. This is out-of-the-box solution and you could setup multiple synced databases in just few clicks/minutes. but the biggest problem with this option is the minimum sync time is 5 min. so you will have 5 min delay between the sync and this can cause huge problems.
Which left you with the last option, to do everything by yourself, by setting up multiple Azure VMs in different regions, and then install and configure database mirroring/replication, and setup network load balancer (in Azure this is easy to do). You will also have to change your Application to use 'correct' connection string. I have done this headache in my previous job (with on-premise servers) and it's costly and time consuming, and your DBA will hate you for rest of his life  .
I still prefer to setup Web Application at multiple locations, load balance them, use single but powerful server for Database, and implement some intelligent caching service using NoSQL database. 
|
|
|
|
|
Multiple web apps and a bit of intellegence certainly sounds better than incurring the wrath of the DBAs.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
