GoofyGuy (7/31/2014)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/31/2014)
GoofyGuy (7/31/2014)
"A job that runs long or doesn't run at all can sting just as bad as one that fails."What's the difference?
There is no difference.
Sure there is. A long running job might be stuck, but it's done some work. If you clear the issue, it may run quicker. Depending on the job, ETL or some check, it might not affect your day to day operations.
One that doesn't run is bad because you might not realize the event hasn't occurred. If there is no issue, like a corruption check, then it might not affect you, but certainly it could in the future. A failure of the same job would be indicative of a problem, at least it's likely.
These all can cause problems, but there certainly is a difference in many cases. Not all, but many.
All three cases represent failure to design and test properly. There is no difference, in my mind, from that perspective.
Perhaps - but the fallout of a partially completed job can be substantially harder to recover from, than, say, the job didn't run because someone disabled the scheduler.
Also - depending on the type of process you're dealing with, it may not be physically possible to test every single permutation, so - yes in some cases you might not be able to completely dummy-proof or fail-proof some jobs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?