SQLTestUser (8/26/2014)
Thanks for the quick response, it is for a database server which is hosted but managed internally as of now, and signs are pointing towards giving full control to an outside hosting company to manage all aspects of the database server, management, updates etc. My justification would gear us towards growing a DBA from within, and have a staff full time or full time staff to manage our internal data.
You're doing this backwards. It's not for us to tell you why your company should have an in house DBA. There are significant pros and cons to both sides. It comes down though to effectiveness per dollar spent. What's got the best ROI?
Training within from scratch is rarely the best ROI, especially if you don't already have a mentor on site and being paid already. Experienced DBAs are expensive. Do you have 4 hours a week of work for them? That's a waste of money. Do you have 32 hours a week for them? Might be valuable, depends. Is it short term or long term?
You're fighting the wrong battle. The purpose is not to entrench and defend a position to keep things where they are. The purpose is to decide what is best for the company, and then to decide what the best approach to that task list is. Sometimes in house makes the most sense. Sometimes it doesn't.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA