Which solution on Azure is better and why

@Relay

Great question, you're evaluating two solid architectural approaches for moving data into your Azure SQL (Silver Layer), and it's smart to think through cost, reliability, resilience, and scalability. Let’s break it down:

Scenario 1 – Stream Analytics → Service Bus → Function App → Azure SQL

Cost - Higher, involves multiple services (Stream Analytics, Service Bus, Function App/Azure SQL), each with its own pricing model.

Reliability - High, Stream Analytics ensures exactly-once processing, and Service Bus provides at-least-once delivery with DLQ support.

Resilience - Strong, Service Bus acts as a buffer, ensuring message durability and retry support.

Scalability - Excellent, all components (Stream Analytics, Service Bus, Azure SQL) scale based on workload.

Pros:

• Supports real-time ingestion.
• Offers message queuing and delivery guarantees.
• Ideal for IoT, telemetry, and event-driven architectures.

Cons:

• Higher complexity and operational overhead.
• Costlier compared to a batch-only solution.

Scenario 2 – ADLS Gen2 → Azure Data Factory → Azure SQL

Cost - Lower, ADF is pay-per-activity; ADLS Gen2 is cost-efficient for large volumes of batch data.

Reliability - Reliable, built-in retry policies and detailed monitoring in ADF.

Resilience - Good, ADF handles failures via error handling and pipeline branching.

Scalability - Scales well for batch workloads, especially with parallel copy and Mapping Data Flows.

Pros:

• Lower cost for batch ETL/ELT jobs.
• Centralized monitoring and management.
• Easier to maintain and simpler architecture.

Cons:

• No real-time ingestion — limited to batch execution.
• Error handling must be explicitly designed (no built-in DLQ like in Service Bus).

Recommendation:

Choose Scenario 1 if you need real-time processing, guaranteed delivery, or are already using event-driven pipelines.

Choose Scenario 2 if you need a simpler, cost-effective, and batch-focused solution for data movement.

If both options are viable, consider hybrid architecture:

• Use Scenario 1 for critical real-time paths.
• Use Scenario 2 for periodic reconciliation, enrichment, or downstream reporting.

why to use 1 or 2 vs why not to use.

I hope this information helps. Please do let us know if you have any further queries.

Kindly consider upvoting the comment if the information provided is helpful. This can assist other community members in resolving similar issues. Thank you.

Choosing between Azure Stream Analytics (ASA) and Azure Data Factory (ADF) depends on your specific data processing requirements and the goals of your project.

• Azure Stream Analytics (ASA): Operates on a pay-as-you-go model, charging based on the number of streaming units and the volume of data processed. This can be cost-effective for continuous, real-time data processing but may become expensive for low-volume or intermittent workloads
• Azure Data Factory (ADF): Charges are based on pipeline orchestration, data movement, and transformation activities. While ADF can be economical for batch processing, costs can escalate with complex data flows and frequent executions.

Scenario 1 (Using ASA with Service Bus): If your application requires real-time data processing with minimal latency, ASA is the appropriate choice.

Scenario 2 (Using ADF with ADLS Gen2): For batch processing, data transformation, and integration tasks, ADF is more suitable.

😊 If my answer helped you resolve your issue, please consider marking it as the correct answer. This helps others in the community find solutions more easily. Thanks!