June 5, 2003 at 8:58 am
I would agree. I don't think there is a general rule of thumb, but I've noticed over the years there seems to be more of a direct correlation to the number of DBAs with number of people in the office, than with the workload.
In our shop, I am the only DBA. My responsibilities cover 113 SQL Servers with approx 295 databases, where 72 servers are in remote offices connected via a WAN. We have two clusters and are deploying another 5 servers in our DR site as warm standbys. For the most part, I have most everything automated, but to put things in perspective... Senior management wanted SQL patches applied, due to the Slammer, even though all the testing had not been completed.
I was able to script an installation process so I could upgrade all the field servers to SP3 over the course of two days. For better or worse, I was able to accomplish the feat quickly, but my boss's perspective was, "It looks like you still have everything under control, so we don't need to hire another DBA."
I guess there is a reason why the windows don't open in this high-rise.
My recommendation: Always have two DBAs; two seniors or one senior, one junior. That way, you can have coverage at all times.
June 5, 2003 at 9:01 am
quote:
my boss's perspective was, "It looks like you still have everything under control, so we don't need to hire another DBA."
If you dig quickly they will simply buy you a bigger shovel.
June 5, 2003 at 10:45 am
I am the sole SQL Server DBA here, we have 20 servers running 50 SQL Server databases + or - a few. We also have DB2 OS-390 running 6 Peoplesoft modules on 5 DB2 subsystems and legacy DB2 on 2 subsystems OS-390, UDB for our Data Warehouse on AIX and now Oracle with 5 new databases Windows/AIX. We currently just got an Oracle DBA and we are a staff of 5 total.
June 5, 2003 at 8:56 pm
There is something of an inverse correlation between the number of knowledgable dba's and knowledgable programmers when it comes to rdbms's. We have less of the latter and try to enforce strict requirements so developers cannot alter anything in production. This makes the dba workload heavier. We are also responsible for performance tuning. I am just finishing an 11 hour day and have no where near the number of servers some of you report. My sympathies to those dba's with a hundred servers. Your only option may be to throw hardware at it.
June 5, 2003 at 10:06 pm
Don't know about the maths, but agree fully with the "try to enforce strict requirements so developers cannot alter anything in production. ". Reason, that last minute fix/enhancement but give developers freedom on there development box, preferably on there own desktop. Lastly configuration management can be a problem if changes are applied to undocumented.
June 6, 2003 at 9:43 am
Interesting subject! It is my belief that there are several types of Database people:
DBA = One who owns the hardware, software and network requirements. Also providing needed services like Back-ups, Patches, etc...
DBO = One who creates and maintains scheme and DATA. This person also provides customer liasons if a project/product manager is not present. This person also handles developer requirements. It is the only person that has input to the DBA.
Database Developers = Person writing SQL.
How many shops are running under this module and how many of you would change your input if you have this module?
June 6, 2003 at 11:07 am
As others have noted, just listing # of DBA's and # of servers or DB's may be comparing apples to oranges. For instance, here our infrastructure group does all upgrades, patches, etc., not the DBA (me). A lot of my job is data warehouse work. It's hard to give a rule of thumb when the responsibilities of DBA's can vary so greatly.
Holly
June 6, 2003 at 11:43 am
We have hundreds of servers (600+) here, over 100 SQL Servers, who knows how many dbs. In Operations we manage about 55 servers (about because we only do backups on a few, not really manage) and do patches, upgrades, backups, and help troubleshoot. There's me and a junior DBA who does a lot of other support. It's not quite a fulltime job for me, I do work on projects and other things, but it tends to be feast or famine. Either the servers run well or I'm buried with issues.
Steve Jones
June 9, 2003 at 10:38 pm
In reponse to Slange's post. I must be classed as a DBA/DBO/Developer as I'm doing all the responsibilities you mentioned! I think it actually works quite well, being the DBA and the Developer.
This sure has been an interesting topic and just goes to show that every shop is different.
June 9, 2003 at 11:09 pm
All the people I know are in this boat.
Developer-DBA.
I prefer to stay away from any other development other than SQL.
Most small companies cannot afford a DBA as such. It should be someone who's skills can be spread around.
Cheers,
Crispin
Cheers,CrispinI can't die, there are too many people who still have to meet me!It's not a bug, SQL just misunderstood me!
June 11, 2003 at 10:03 am
We currently have 13 SQL Servers, 8 2000, 3 7.0, 2 (yes, can you believe it), still 6.5. Various production and test databases on most. I'm the only DBA-type analyst here. I also am the Datawarehouse adminstrator/analyst with a portion of one of my teammates time backing me up.
We'll have several more servers coming in in the next few months, at which time I'll probably be near full-time with my favorite database.
June 12, 2003 at 3:20 am
Interesting to see how many different role combinations there are. Just to add one more ...
I look after 4 production databases, plus a handful of backup and test systems used mainly at upgrade times. All the systems are 3rd party, so development is only tweaking interfaces, and local Access front ends for purposes not covered off the shelf. Not a huge DBA role - the rest of my time is in application support.
Regards - keep up all that good work!
Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply