December 18, 2014 at 6:28 am
Brandie Tarvin (12/18/2014)
So, I'm curious. Anyone have any major projects that people want before the end of the year?
Sure, but what it is changes every day, so none of it ever gets finished.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
December 18, 2014 at 6:51 am
Brandie Tarvin (12/18/2014)
So, I'm curious. Anyone have any major projects that people want before the end of the year?We have a business user that keeps asking for X fix, which I already have coded actually. But our SDLC requires the QA team to do thorough testing and none of them have the bandwidth until mid-January, which makes this a February release. None of which stops the BU from asking me if I can put the code into production NOW PLEASE.
What's worse is that he should know better given what impatience has done to his processes before. But some lessons just don't seem to stick.
When something goes into production, expedited and skipping some testing, who is to blame when there are issues?
Likely you, not the business.
So they usually end up with little risk in pushing to short circuit the process.
Business needs to make a case to support more resources at the bottleneck.
All too often, they expect IT to be doing this.
When they actually might be in a better position to quantify benefits to the business.
Hopefully they are part of the QA process, so the more they push, the more they end up being part of the resources needed to speed things up.
December 18, 2014 at 7:00 am
GilaMonster (12/18/2014)
Brandie Tarvin (12/18/2014)
So, I'm curious. Anyone have any major projects that people want before the end of the year?Yes. The complete reverse engineer and rewrite of a crop modelling system, wanted by 6th Jan. Entertainment for next week = 1600 line long module (front end, not SQL) with no comments, erratic indentation and no naming standard.
Ah well, disappointment is good for people.
:-D:hehe:
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
December 18, 2014 at 7:07 am
An update on the report I'm trying to generate.
It's supposed to be daily, so they want a starting point.
"Can we have one for the whole of November"
- yes sure, no problems.
"The file you sent doesn't contain some rows we were expecting"
- That's because they happened before November.
some time later
"Have you fixed the October issue"
First time I've heard of having cases closed in the previous month as an issue. Well so long as they should have been closed in October I guess...
Oh and of course there are some from before October as well.
We will need to redefine the initial file creation I guess. Just as well there is a call about this in 25 minutes.
Rodders...
December 18, 2014 at 7:13 am
Greg Edwards-268690 (12/18/2014)
Brandie Tarvin (12/18/2014)
So, I'm curious. Anyone have any major projects that people want before the end of the year?We have a business user that keeps asking for X fix, which I already have coded actually. But our SDLC requires the QA team to do thorough testing and none of them have the bandwidth until mid-January, which makes this a February release. None of which stops the BU from asking me if I can put the code into production NOW PLEASE.
What's worse is that he should know better given what impatience has done to his processes before. But some lessons just don't seem to stick.
When something goes into production, expedited and skipping some testing, who is to blame when there are issues?
Likely you, not the business.
So they usually end up with little risk in pushing to short circuit the process.
Business needs to make a case to support more resources at the bottleneck.
All too often, they expect IT to be doing this.
When they actually might be in a better position to quantify benefits to the business.
Hopefully they are part of the QA process, so the more they push, the more they end up being part of the resources needed to speed things up.
They selectively ignore requests for testing, never do the testing they're supposed to do and keep pushing for the production release. When things to awry, they don't know what happened or why things didn't work the way they wanted them to. It's just what they asked for, but not what they wanted. It isn't until later that they say they "didn't have time to test" with the deadline already here. Pay no attention to the fact that they were asking for quotes for new work when they were supposed to be testing.
December 18, 2014 at 7:31 am
Brandie Tarvin (12/18/2014)
So, I'm curious. Anyone have any major projects that people want before the end of the year?We have a business user that keeps asking for X fix, which I already have coded actually. But our SDLC requires the QA team to do thorough testing and none of them have the bandwidth until mid-January, which makes this a February release. None of which stops the BU from asking me if I can put the code into production NOW PLEASE.
What's worse is that he should know better given what impatience has done to his processes before. But some lessons just don't seem to stick.
Fixes always seem more urgent to people. When you give in to the impatience it usually means more fixes down the road.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
December 18, 2014 at 7:46 am
Ed Wagner (12/18/2014)
Greg Edwards-268690 (12/18/2014)
Brandie Tarvin (12/18/2014)
So, I'm curious. Anyone have any major projects that people want before the end of the year?We have a business user that keeps asking for X fix, which I already have coded actually. But our SDLC requires the QA team to do thorough testing and none of them have the bandwidth until mid-January, which makes this a February release. None of which stops the BU from asking me if I can put the code into production NOW PLEASE.
What's worse is that he should know better given what impatience has done to his processes before. But some lessons just don't seem to stick.
When something goes into production, expedited and skipping some testing, who is to blame when there are issues?
Likely you, not the business.
So they usually end up with little risk in pushing to short circuit the process.
Business needs to make a case to support more resources at the bottleneck.
All too often, they expect IT to be doing this.
When they actually might be in a better position to quantify benefits to the business.
Hopefully they are part of the QA process, so the more they push, the more they end up being part of the resources needed to speed things up.
They selectively ignore requests for testing, never do the testing they're supposed to do and keep pushing for the production release. When things to awry, they don't know what happened or why things didn't work the way they wanted them to. It's just what they asked for, but not what they wanted. It isn't until later that they say they "didn't have time to test" with the deadline already here. Pay no attention to the fact that they were asking for quotes for new work when they were supposed to be testing.
Documentation of what was expected, what was tested, signoffs, and dates can be helpful.
Or at least help cover your backside.
I remember one IT Director who used to look forward to the follow up to see what went wrong.
Especially when a tested scenario that was signed off on cannot be replicated.
The emergency fix once it was promoted to production soon had to have presidential approval.
And the quality somehow went up quickly.
Not hard to figure that one out.
December 18, 2014 at 7:58 am
Greg Edwards-268690 (12/18/2014)
Ed Wagner (12/18/2014)
Greg Edwards-268690 (12/18/2014)
Brandie Tarvin (12/18/2014)
So, I'm curious. Anyone have any major projects that people want before the end of the year?We have a business user that keeps asking for X fix, which I already have coded actually. But our SDLC requires the QA team to do thorough testing and none of them have the bandwidth until mid-January, which makes this a February release. None of which stops the BU from asking me if I can put the code into production NOW PLEASE.
What's worse is that he should know better given what impatience has done to his processes before. But some lessons just don't seem to stick.
When something goes into production, expedited and skipping some testing, who is to blame when there are issues?
Likely you, not the business.
So they usually end up with little risk in pushing to short circuit the process.
Business needs to make a case to support more resources at the bottleneck.
All too often, they expect IT to be doing this.
When they actually might be in a better position to quantify benefits to the business.
Hopefully they are part of the QA process, so the more they push, the more they end up being part of the resources needed to speed things up.
They selectively ignore requests for testing, never do the testing they're supposed to do and keep pushing for the production release. When things to awry, they don't know what happened or why things didn't work the way they wanted them to. It's just what they asked for, but not what they wanted. It isn't until later that they say they "didn't have time to test" with the deadline already here. Pay no attention to the fact that they were asking for quotes for new work when they were supposed to be testing.
Documentation of what was expected, what was tested, signoffs, and dates can be helpful.
Or at least help cover your backside.
I remember one IT Director who used to look forward to the follow up to see what went wrong.
Especially when a tested scenario that was signed off on cannot be replicated.
The emergency fix once it was promoted to production soon had to have presidential approval.
And the quality somehow went up quickly.
Not hard to figure that one out.
Yeah, the documentation does cover my backside. It doesn't change the fact that there's a problem in production, but it does help with the political posturing and games that ensue after the problem occurs. I know the political games are a fact of life, but wish they weren't necessary.
December 19, 2014 at 4:44 am
Apparently I'm having terminology issues. Someone mentioned that SQL licensing is changing from "per processor" to "per core".
Silly me, I thought they were the same thing. Can someone explain the difference?
(Yes, this is me asking a technical question in The Thread. Feel free to take me back into the Tent in the Desert and have the hippo steal all my internet cookies.)
December 19, 2014 at 4:48 am
Per processor is the old SQL 2008 and before licensing. Two physical processors - two processor licenses. Done.
Per core is SQL 2012 and later licensing. Two quad core processors - 8 core licenses.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
December 19, 2014 at 5:13 am
GilaMonster (12/19/2014)
Per processor is the old SQL 2008 and before licensing. Two physical processors - two processor licenses. Done.Per core is SQL 2012 and later licensing. Two quad core processors - 8 core licenses.
So a single processor can have multiple cores because a core is a measurement of ... something like virtual processors?
December 19, 2014 at 5:28 am
No, a core is a measure of cores. The number of processing cores on a single physical processor.
My desktop at home has an Intel i7 quad-core processor. If I look on the motherboard there's a single processor plugged into it. That processor has 4 cores in it. Hence quad-core processor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
December 19, 2014 at 5:30 am
You know, this time of year kind of sucks here...
All the contractors have to come in to "work" while every government person who could finagle it is off until at least the new year.
So sure, things can get done, but at such a slow pace that you need a deck of cards...
Have I got projects to work on, that this would be a perfect time for?
Absolutely!
BUT with the people being out who are out, parts of said projects that they need to complete first obviously won't...
So, next week when it's even worse, I'll be dragging my personal laptop in so I can work on boning up to re-take 70-458 to get upgraded to the SQL2012 MCSA.
Ah well, it could be worse, I could not have a job...
December 19, 2014 at 5:35 am
Brandie Tarvin (12/19/2014)
GilaMonster (12/19/2014)
Per processor is the old SQL 2008 and before licensing. Two physical processors - two processor licenses. Done.Per core is SQL 2012 and later licensing. Two quad core processors - 8 core licenses.
So a single processor can have multiple cores because a core is a measurement of ... something like virtual processors?
Chiming in here...
As Gail said, each core is a processing core. Almost (but not quite) an independant processor in it's own right. The reason for the almost is, there's quite a bit of shared "stuff" between the cores (I think some of the L2 and L1 cache, various other bits and bobs)
A "virtual" processor might be if those cores also did Hyperthreading, which looks like a second processor (per core).
So, taking Gails quad-core processor as an example, if it supported (and it was enabled) Hyperthreading, it would show to the OS as 8 "processors" in Task Manager, have 4 physical cores, in a single processor die.
Clear as mud?
😉
December 19, 2014 at 5:48 am
Trying another rephrase to see if I understand this correctly.
So basically instead of creating multiple physical processors like memory makers create sticks of RAM, some bright soul thought to "weld" multiple processors into one "container" and hook them together. That way motherboards still only needed one (or two) slots for a CPU but servers and PCs could get the benefits of having multiple processors.
Yes? No? Maybe?
Viewing 15 posts - 46,651 through 46,665 (of 66,549 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply