May 29, 2010 at 11:58 pm
On the flip side of this particular coin, what is worse: DBA by committee or a single DBA that posts the sort of questions we see on here regularly? The ones the won't read Chapter 1 of Lowell's book, I mean.
It might be just how I feel today, but there does seem to be a lack of even minimally-competent SQL Server DBAs out there.
The other kind of 'undesirable DBA' (at least in my book) is that guy: the one that does present a road-block to new developments, jealously guards his or her database 'empire', and is incapable of working positively with other groups (users, management, developers) for the benefit of the organisation as a whole. You know who you are 🙂
So yeah, some of this is good news of a sort for consultants, but is that really the right approach?
My rates available on request 😀
Paul
May 30, 2010 at 2:15 am
The DBA has historically covered at least two distinct types of role, sometimes combined into one person or team and sometimes not. Firstly, there's the Production DBA: managing servers, backups, storage, replication, etc. Secondly the Development DBA: designing or approving database schema change, writing stored procedures, optimising code.
These days many if not most development teams want to take on database development within their team and not rely on a separate DBA team or role. I think that's a good thing in principle but in many cases it does mean that a DBA has to jump one way or the other, either becoming a full time database architect / developer or a full time production DBA.
This represents a shift in some traditional roles. However, it is definitely a step forward in my view because tightly integrated teams who take ownership of a set of deliverables and stay close to customer requirements frequently produce the best results. A database develepor is just one of the skills that a capable, multi-skilled development team needs. The more database professionals who engage with those teams the more the team's collective database expertise will improve.
May 30, 2010 at 6:57 am
As an "acting DBA" who doesn't feel quite ready to be the Senior DBA, I've suggested we make use of consultants as needed, if the funds or justification just wasn't there to hire a full-time Senior DBA.
Of course I'd rather work alongside a senior guy or gal on a full-time basis. By next Spring we'll wrap up the migration of our clients from the legacy system (mixed foxpro/sql ) to our new .net / sql server system and 50% of my current work load will go away. So I'm watching closely and getting ready to update the resume just in case.
May 30, 2010 at 10:58 am
I'm working with a client at the moment where there's no DBA at all and never has been. Plan is that I do triage and get the environment back into a manageable state, then we look at getting someone in full time to keep it that way.
It's been a week, and 1 major crisis already. Fun.
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
May 30, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Paul White NZ (5/29/2010)
On the flip side of this particular coin, what is worse: DBA by committee or a single DBA that posts the sort of questions we see on here regularly? The ones the won't read Chapter 1 of Lowell's book, I mean.It might be just how I feel today, but there does seem to be a lack of even minimally-competent SQL Server DBAs out there.
The other kind of 'undesirable DBA' (at least in my book) is that guy: the one that does present a road-block to new developments, jealously guards his or her database 'empire', and is incapable of working positively with other groups (users, management, developers) for the benefit of the organisation as a whole. You know who you are 🙂
So yeah, some of this is good news of a sort for consultants, but is that really the right approach?
My rates available on request 😀
Paul
I was going to post an addition to this thread but you've pretty much said it all. The only other thing I can add would be for HR and It managers to wake up. 😉 Not only do you need a DBA, but you need one who can actually do the job. Whatever your tactics are, if you've got DBAs that can't quite cut it, you need to change them in the future.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 30, 2010 at 4:19 pm
I think data is going to come into ascendancy if it hasn't already. In the old days you needed a DBA simply to keep the lights on, now you can get away without one for a surprising amount of time.
BUT.....
We are in the realms of mechanically produced data. Data is no-longer a thing generated by a customer clicking buttons, its generated from machines, click-stream stuff, event processing etc. Even the best designed database system is going to crack under the pressure of that much data.
M$ have focussed on BI for the past few years and SQL2008R2 Parallel Processing edition is (almost) going to bring MPP to the masses.
In terms of developers my own personal experience is the that those who have had their fingers burnt are much more keen to meet DBAs half way. If there is any division between the roles of developer and DBA it is up to both parties to resolve any tensions.
I put on a few lunch time sessions as a kind of DB 101 and the developers who attended it nearly all said that they didn't realise the detail that was involved in looking after databases. If just one of them takes some of it on board I've achieved something. The trick is to get senior managers to recognise the importance of DBAs. As DBAs are not trumpet blowers or salesmen their activities are sadly invisible. In fact if the DBA does his/her job well enough they will be totally invisible without a bit of self promotion.
May 30, 2010 at 11:27 pm
This is the same kind of situation that prompted me to leave my first DBA position. I was DBA, lead of the database developers (which meant I was still doing the lion share of the database development work), and lead for the helpdesk. I also did some web/app development when the company was really in a pinch.
I was so busy with my "additional" roles, that I didn't have time to do my DBA job. When I gave my notice, they offered to meet the other company's offer, but I told them that it wasn't enough. If they wanted me to even consider it, they would have to add more people to the team so that I wasn't forced to continue doing dev work and could do my real job.
I was stagnating in that job and so were my skills. They were still running SQL 2000 (this was in 2006) and had been talking about upgrading to SQL 2005 and doing a rearchitecture project for the system. They tried to dangle that in front of me, but 1. I knew they had been looking for an architect to head up the rearch. project, and 2. if they didn't hire more developers, I'd never have time to participate in the project, much less be in charge of it.
So here I was in 2006, still using SQL 2000 hearing about the cool features other people were working with and hte cool projects they were doing. I had become comfortable and complacent. It was hard going out there and looking for something else, but I eventually realized I had too.
So if anyone out there reads this and is in a similar situation, I hope you take my advice. Don't let your career stagnate. Don't stay in an unfullfilling job. There's better stuff out there, and you can have goals and attain them!!
May 31, 2010 at 7:55 am
I too am a consultant that makes very good money primarily off of companies that don't have DBAs and/or don't train developers in good database application design/development. But I STILL wish there were more companies with DBAs for their SQL Servers. There would still be a nearly infinite amount of work for me but much less "sql server can't scale", "sql server corrupted my data", "I lost my business because of sql server", etc kind of comments batting around the digital ether.
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
May 31, 2010 at 2:06 pm
So here I was in 2006, still using SQL 2000 hearing about the cool features other people were working
Imagine how you'd feel if it was June 2010 and you were still using SQL2000 with people questioning why they needed to upgrade?:angry:
May 31, 2010 at 4:21 pm
David.Poole (5/31/2010)
Imagine how you'd feel if it was June 2010 and you were still using SQL2000 with people questioning why they needed to upgrade?:angry:
Hopefully not complacent and comfortable.
May 31, 2010 at 6:10 pm
David.Poole (5/30/2010)
Even the best designed database system is going to crack under the pressure of that much data.
Heh... it hasn't yet. 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply