Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««123»»

SharePoint - Subversive? Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 12:49 PM


Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:30 AM
Points: 67, Visits: 219
>>>With 4 TB disk drives expected to dip under $200 once the Thai plants are fully back, space is usually a non-issue.

I was thinking of the stress on the SQL/SP instance, where it has to handle all of the documents in addition to whatever else it has to do. I hundred people reading/writing to a share wouldn't tax SQL at all, but if they are putting it in and taking it out of SS/SP, it then can slow other processes.


*******************
What I lack in youth, I make up for in immaturity!
Post #1229523
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 12:55 PM


SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:36 PM
Points: 494, Visits: 1,122
I agree with several of the posters that have indicated a general lack of business interest in making a full commitment to the full use of SP. It may be that the “idea” men feel threatened by sharing their arena, but I think it’s more fear of change. As DB pros, we look at it from our mindset, you know, “whoopeee, woo-hoo, we have new toys!”. We like to play with new tools and find the best and most efficient ways to do things. I think this makes us a little unique in the world of carpeted cages. Most folks get set into their processes and get comfortable with their routines, and change becomes difficult.

I’ve designed some pretty cool SharePoint implementations, and the most difficult thing by far has been getting the buy-in from management and operations. Sadly, I’ve rarely seen it used for more than a interface to manage the same nasty messy underlying file system they are trying to replace.

Getting anyone to the point of actually using the collaborative features, even to the simplistic end of keeping 6000 copies of the same-ish document off of the exchange server, has been nothing short of – ummm- impossible. Nobody wants to take a few weeks now to save time in the future. Why do today what you can put off til tomorrow, right? You’d think seeing the beauty of easily finding content using metadata and custom views would be a snap to sell. Nah, rather poke around folders for days. Manage document approval with a three-state workflow? Bah. Print it and run around the office.

Sheesh. Now I’m getting all het-up thinking about it. Off to hunt down some beer popsicles…


Looking for a Deadlock Victim Support Group..
Post #1229526
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 12:59 PM


Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:30 AM
Points: 67, Visits: 219
Since you've done several implementations, maybe you can say whether any of them have not been financially beneficial, or if they all, to some degree or another, have been, and whether they were implemented solely for compliance issue... or to hopefully be in synch with the future...

*******************
What I lack in youth, I make up for in immaturity!
Post #1229527
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 2:05 PM


SSCarpal Tunnel

SSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal Tunnel

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 8:50 AM
Points: 4,425, Visits: 3,417
brosspremier (1/3/2012)
>>>With 4 TB disk drives expected to dip under $200 once the Thai plants are fully back, space is usually a non-issue.

I was thinking of the stress on the SQL/SP instance, where it has to handle all of the documents in addition to whatever else it has to do. I hundred people reading/writing to a share wouldn't tax SQL at all, but if they are putting it in and taking it out of SS/SP, it then can slow other processes.

If you experience that type of load, you can install SP in integrated mode, which spreads the load between two or more machines.
Post #1229558
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:21 PM


SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:45 AM
Points: 162, Visits: 383
Revenant, you brought up a couple of things. First, I think you made an excellent point that users would have to have to adhere to properly putting in header information into documents. Where I work, that isn't ever going to happen. So SP does that for you, then? I also notice that you mentioned that TFS is a specialized version of SP; that's interesting, as I've been thinking it would be good to migrate our very old instance of Visual SourceSafe to TFS. But the problem is identifying a server to put it on.

Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?



Rod
Post #1229621
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:28 PM


Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:30 AM
Points: 67, Visits: 219
>>>Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

Ouch! The exact question we are facing around here!

My thought has been "let's hire a SP person"... but then, for $5000, what if one of us just got some training?



*******************
What I lack in youth, I make up for in immaturity!
Post #1229623
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:56 PM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 7, 2013 6:59 PM
Points: 40, Visits: 217
Now that's a question I can't resist commenting on because although I certified in SharePoint development I get about 80% administration tasks by necessity regardless of the type of firm - if they don't have a SharePoint administrator. I see way wacky things because the installation process for SharePoint is in no way automatic or obvious - like the recent discovery of a WFE server set up on the back-end SQL Server and the actual SharePoint server not serving much! Another area that is almost never set up properly is the service accounts - and that's understandable because they have to have groups created in active directory and then correctly permissioned in SQL Server before being assigned to the right applications in SharePoint. Once you do get things set up properly **if you don't let anyone touch it** your OOTB SharePoint install can run happily for a long time without a lot of hands on adminstration. The recommendations for managing its SQL Server are that its instance server SharePoint exclusively and not be directly queried. There's a great DBA article about that here.

As to the metadata, that's something that can be tailored to your org terms when it is set up and then required when content enters a library or list - but that too is an advanced setup task. It is a change of thinking from folder based doc management and way easier when users get the hang of it.
Post #1229628
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 6:08 PM


SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:45 AM
Points: 162, Visits: 383
brosspremier (1/3/2012)
>>>Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

Ouch! The exact question we are facing around here!

My thought has been "let's hire a SP person"... but then, for $5000, what if one of us just got some training?



I'd say this question, for us, is the critical question. If it requires an administrator, then it just isn't going to happen. We're so poor that they no longer pay for even $50 technical books.



Rod
Post #1229629
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 6:11 PM


SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:45 AM
Points: 162, Visits: 383
Ramona-1042522 (1/3/2012)
Now that's a question I can't resist commenting on because although I certified in SharePoint development I get about 80% administration tasks by necessity regardless of the type of firm - if they don't have a SharePoint administrator. I see way wacky things because the installation process for SharePoint is in no way automatic or obvious - like the recent discovery of a WFE server set up on the back-end SQL Server and the actual SharePoint server not serving much! Another area that is almost never set up properly is the service accounts - and that's understandable because they have to have groups created in active directory and then correctly permissioned in SQL Server before being assigned to the right applications in SharePoint. Once you do get things set up properly **if you don't let anyone touch it** your OOTB SharePoint install can run happily for a long time without a lot of hands on adminstration. The recommendations for managing its SQL Server are that its instance server SharePoint exclusively and not be directly queried. There's a great DBA article about that here.

As to the metadata, that's something that can be tailored to your org terms when it is set up and then required when content enters a library or list - but that too is an advanced setup task. It is a change of thinking from folder based doc management and way easier when users get the hang of it.


Does SP really require a well designed AD structure? Hmm. That could be a problem for us as well. Our current AD structure requires some significant redesign. It was based upon an NT 3.51 network way back in the day, and hasn't changed much since then.



Rod
Post #1229630
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 10:28 PM


SSCarpal Tunnel

SSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal Tunnel

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 8:50 AM
Points: 4,425, Visits: 3,417
Doctor Who 2 (1/3/2012)
Revenant, you brought up a couple of things. First, I think you made an excellent point that users would have to have to adhere to properly putting in header information into documents. Where I work, that isn't ever going to happen. So SP does that for you, then? I also notice that you mentioned that TFS is a specialized version of SP; that's interesting, as I've been thinking it would be good to migrate our very old instance of Visual SourceSafe to TFS. But the problem is identifying a server to put it on.

Lastly, does SharePoint require an administrator?

SP can reject a doc that does not adhere to a set template, or templates.

Re migration to TFS, TFS will run OK on a modest 4 GB machine, which may be virtual. TFS 2012 you will be able to run off the cloud.

Yes, TFS does require an administrator, and if you want to use it to manage the entire lifecycle, including but of course not limited to running automated tests on a dedicated test server - which can also be virtual - as is needed for repeatability, you will need a service account with admin rights to the Test Manager, the test server, and the TFS. I am mentioning it specifically because this powerful combination of privileges raises lots of security questions that better be answered before you start setting things up.

I think that TFS importance to SQLS development will increase because Visual Studio 2012 includes native tools for testing of SQL scripts including stored procedures. The argument that testing T-SQL under TFS is too laborious because you need custom wrappers will no longer hold water, so I would definitely recommend thinking about migration.
Post #1229660
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««123»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse