I'm creating an application where each business will have;
owner which is a user at some-business-name database,
Some information about the business (This part will actually change my app's UI)
employees(Also users same as owner)
permissions (for employees. permissions for owner can't changed)
customers (Every business have customers)
... and such
I need a new database for each business with a unique business name for database name
Is there a limit to the number of databases in AWS RDS for MYSQL? if so how can i solve this problem?
NOTE: I have to create this application using aws
Take a look at the FAQs for RDS, looking at the "How many databases or schemas can I run within a DB instance?" section. According to that:
RDS for MySQL: No limit imposed by software
EDIT
You asked in the comments if this is suitable for your application. I have personally always found the "one environment per client" setup to be challenging. You must have good database upgrade scripts and code practices. Debugging a single client means understand the code that they run and the schema that they have. A multi-tenant solution can be easier but comes with it's own set of challenges when partitioning database data between customers. Yes, your solution will work. You don't mention the server side other than the CDK but if you're going to also partition the code this way it becomes very difficult to know which client is running what software.
Regardless of how you decide to do this keep good information about each client and what version of the software and the database they are using. Hopefully the software you're using auto-updates schemas as needed.
Related
I have an application in which we want to provide the functionality using which user can add/update/delete the columns of different tables. My approach is to create a different database for each client so that their changes specific to tables will remain in their database.
Since each client will have their own database, I wonder how can I manage authentication and authorization? Do I need to create a different database for that as well? Will it affect the performance of the application?
Edit: The approach that I am planning to use for authentication and authorization is to create an additional field called "Account" on the login page. This account name will guide the program to connect it to correct database. And each database will have it's own users to authenticate.
The answer to your question is of course (and unfortunately) Yes and No. :)
This is known as multi-tenant data architecture.
Having separate databases can definitely be a great design option however so can using one database shared with all of your clients/customers and you will need to consider many factors before choosing.
Each design has pluses and minuses.
Here are your 3 essential choices
1) Each customer shares the same database and database tables.
2) Each customer shares the same database but they get their own schema inside the database so they each get their own set of tables.
3)Each customer gets their own database.
One major benefit (that I really like) to the separate database approach is data security. What I mean by this is that every customer gets their own database and because of this they will edit/update/delete just their database. Because of this, there is no risk in end users overriding other users data either due to programmatic error on your part or due to a security breach in your application.
When all users are in the same database you could accidentally pull and expose another customers data. Or, worse, you could expose a primary key to a record on screen and forget to secure it appropriately and a power user could override this key very easily to a key that belongs to another customer thus exposing another clients data.
However, lets say that all of your customers are actually subsidieries of 1 large company and you need to roll up financials every day/week/month/year etc.
If this is the case, then having a database for every client could be a reporting nightmare and having everyone in a single database sharing tables would just make life so much easier. When it comes time to report on your daily sales for instance, its easier to just sum up a column then go to 10,000 databases and sum them up. :)
So the answer definitely depends on your applicaton and what it will be doing.
I work on a large enterprise system where we have tens of thousands of clients in the same database and in order to support this we took very great care to secure all of our data very carefully.
I also work on a side project in my spare time which supports a database per customer multi-tenant architecture.
So, consider what your application will do, how you will backup your data, do you need to roll up data etc and this will help you decide.
Heres a grea article on MSDN for this:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479086.aspx
Regarding your question about authentication.
Yes, having a separate database for authentication is a great design. When a customer authenticates, you will authenticate them off of your authentication database and they will receive the connectionstring to their database as part of this authentication. Then all data from that point comes from that clients database.
Hope this was helpful.
Good luck!
For a client I'm going to deliver a SaaS solution, SaaS in that matter it's still closed to a limited clients that has to sign a contract with us, so not shared world wide and the client base will be around 5-10 companies.
Our first client, the pilot client so to speak, has it as a requirement that they can perform SQL queries (read mode only) on the data, so they can make analysis in Excel along with what our application serves.
My question is that I would for maintain reasons prefer to serve everything in the same codebase, but I'm wondering how I can make sure, clients can access other clients SQL records?
I'm using Laravel so the solution for different installations would be to make everything in maintainable packages and upgrade all installations from there, but this can grow to a lot of work.
How to have the solution with only one solution I'm still not sure, maybe it is to have a separate database per client? That would require a central database to point them to the right database of course, or maybe only have some of the tables in another database, but it already sounds like a mess to me
In Laravel it is possible to have multiple database connections. As such your thoughts on giving the clients thier own database is going to be the most secure option.
Have your default database be your main application database which will be settings/auth etc.
For each client store their personal data in a separate database per client and only allow them to query this database.
Although I don't know the specifics of your application my true suggestion is to avoid the SQL queries completely and build an API.
Your SaaS clients should not have to be concerned with the internal implementation of your database structure. A well built API gives you freedom to modify the database as needed and the SaaS client the peace of mind that their "interface" is not in a technically permanent state of flux.
Little question, I'm developing a saas software (erp).
I designed it with 1 database per account for these reasons :
I make a lot of personalisation, and need to add specific table columns for each account.
Easier to manage db backup (and reload data !)
Less risky : sometimes I need to run SQL queries on a table, in case of an error with bad query (update / delete...), only one customer is affected instead of all of them.
Bas point : I'm turning to have hundreds of databases...
I'm hiring a company to manage my servers, and they said that it's better to have only one database, with a few tables, and put all data in the same tables with column as id_account. I'm very very surprised by these words, so I'm wondering... what are your ideas ?
Thanks !
Frederic
The current environment I am working in, we handle millions of records from numerous clients. Our solution is to use Schema to segregate each individual client. A schema allows you to partition your clients into separate virtual databases while inside a single db. Each schema will have an exact copy of the tables from your application.
The upside:
Segregated client data
data from a single client can be easily backed up, exported or deleted
Programming is still the same, but you have to select the schema before db calls
Moving clients to another db or standalone server is a lot easier
adding specific tables per client is easier (see below)
single instance of the database running
tuning the db affects all tenants
The downside:
Unless you manage your shared schema properly, you may duplicate data
Migrations are repeated for every schema
You have to remember to select the schema before db calls
hard pressed to add many negatives... I guess I may be biased.
Adding Specific Tables: Why would you add client specific tables if this is SAAS and not custom software? Better to use a Postgres DB with a Hstore field and store as much searchable data as you like.
Schemas are ideal for multi-tenant databases Link Link
A lot of what I am telling you depends on your software stack, the capabilities of your developers and the backend db you selected (all of which you neglected to mention)
Your hardware guys should not decide your software architecture. If they do, you are likely shooting yourself in the leg before you even get out of the gate. Get a good senior software architect, the grief they will save you, will likely save your business.
I hope this helps...
Bonne Chance
I've tried to find answer to my question but i couldn't find the right answer yet (would be glad if you point me to one). I'm a newbie when it comes to running services (websites, forum, wikis, emails). I'm rather experimenting.
I have couple of websites (mainly wordpress), mail server, forum, wikis, and file sharing (owncloud) hosted on one server.
Until now every time I would install new service I would create new database (mysql), just like the install readme's would advice. I would like to connect some of the services together. Mainly unified user database.
What is the best way to do it. Is having multiple databases versus one db heavier for my servers cpu load? Is it secure? Is it easy to administrate it?
If cpu load isn't issue while having multiple db's is it possible to create user database and link it to the services databases i would like to link it to?
Having multiple applications (forum, wiki, ...) access the same database is not likely to have any effect on CPU usage, but there are other drawbacks:
Table names used by applications might have conflicts (many of them might have a "session" or "posts" table). Some web apps have a feature to prefix table names with a string, like "wp_session" and "wp_posts" for example to get around conflicts.
Yes, it's less secure. When one of the applications has a security hole and someone manages to access its database, data of all applications is compromised.
Multiple databases is likely to be easier to manage when doing application upgrades, backups, removing or adding applications to the mix.
Accidentally break one database, and you'll break all apps.
To get the applications use the same authentication database it's usually not enough to point them at the same database, as they're likely to use a different database schema for storing user information (different columns in the auth database), different hashing for password storage, and so on.
The question is quite broad, and the specific answer depends a lot on the actual applications you're using. The best approach in general is probably to pick applications which support a protocol such as OpenID or OAuth, or an authentication backend such as an LDAP database or PAM (Pluggable Authentication Module). These methods allow you to use a single user database managed by a single method. The apps all need to work with the same backend. In any case, it's likely to be quite a learning experience to get it running smoothly.
I have an application which is going to be distributed to a hosting platform, most probably phpfog.
It is very similar to how WordPress.com operates, where each customer can host their own individual installation of the app on our servers. We host the 'work' files and provide the database (However, it is NOT WordPress; it's a custom app).
Each user of the application has their own separate MySQL database.
I am wondering what the most cost-effective service would be to provide this. It seems that most cloud services offer, for instance, one massive 50GB database. It is definitely conceivable that instead of an individual database, we have one huge one and prefix all the tables per user. But that seems really bloated and unwieldy. It's also not really possible without major structural changes to have one big database for everyone (And the same tables inside it for everyone) as the app is primarily designed to be standalone.
Each database really won't get that big. We are talking low GB - I'd suggest the biggest would be 5GB. However, there will be a LOT of them as obviously it's one per customer.
What would be the most cost- and performance-effective way of handling this?
Amazon RDS in fact provides a database server rather than an individual sales page; I misunderstood their offerings.
In this case, RDS is a drop-in replacement for existing MySQL databases and will work perfectly.