July 20, 2010 at 8:42 am
Michael Valentine Jones (7/20/2010)
Sounds like no one read his follow-up post on the blog:"...However, in this case we had been on a couple calls with EMC about this and even had their top engineers on the phone with us. I had been telling them for 2yrs that we could have LUNs larger than 68GB but my SAN guys kept saying that it was impossible w/o killing performance. Then EMC agreed with me and we all agreed that doing this wouldn’t be a huge issue as long as we did it right. This is a company with gazillions of dollars to throw at hardware and they have a HUGE warehouse… so money isn’t the issue. When all was said and done, the SAN guy decided he didn’t like the DBA showing him up in front of his main vendor so he put a single drive in there instead of the 20 we had agreed on. On both calls with EMC we all agreed that having plenty of disks was essential. So not only was there no miscommunication, there was no middleman. There were only 2 SAN guys and I submitted the request myself directly to them. I get that you’re trying to smooth things over and give alternative reasons why this happened, but I just don’t see much wiggle room in this case."
I usually tend towards incompetent as the most likely explanation but malicious is possible, although in this case, I would call it childish or petty. If the situation was really as he described, I would say firing the SAN guy is justified.
Michael...thanks for posting the final bit in the referenced material. I thought for a minute that no one but myself had read the entire posting......lol..... Fire the SAN guy!! Too petty!
July 20, 2010 at 8:47 am
Seems like there are a lot of communication and education issues between DBAs and the SAN guys. Here our problem with the SAN guys is that they hear us ask for a separate LUN for data and a LUN for logs and we explain that we want to isolate data reads from log i/o. So instead of a separate LUN for each, they provide a LUN with two partitions. When we complain that this isn't going to work they indicate that underneath the LUN are different physical drives, so isn't the work spread out among disks? No matter how we explain that we need data and logs to be totally separate on separate physical LUNs they don't seem to get it.
July 20, 2010 at 9:01 am
jeff.mason (7/20/2010)
Seems like there are a lot of communication and education issues between DBAs and the SAN guys. Here our problem with the SAN guys is that they hear us ask for a separate LUN for data and a LUN for logs and we explain that we want to isolate data reads from log i/o. So instead of a separate LUN for each, they provide a LUN with two partitions. When we complain that this isn't going to work they indicate that underneath the LUN are different physical drives, so isn't the work spread out among disks? No matter how we explain that we need data and logs to be totally separate on separate physical LUNs they don't seem to get it.
These conversations just need to include the need for physically separate LUNs, recoverability. The SAN admins, of all people, should get that.
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
July 20, 2010 at 9:04 am
Some do, some don't. It's the same old thing -- people all say that you need a DBA but no one accepts what a DBA says because they don't like or get what they hear. It just is frustrating to encounter those who don't get it.
July 20, 2010 at 9:13 am
jeff.mason (7/20/2010)
Some do, some don't. It's the same old thing -- people all say that you need a DBA but no one accepts what a DBA says because they don't like or get what they hear. It just is frustrating to encounter those who don't get it.
Depends where you work 🙂
I had the good fortune to become the "DBA" when I was a sys admin and I had control of SAN resources and eventually as I moved further over into the role, I had the ear and a great relationship with the sys admin. I know that that is probably the exception.
Try feeding the SAN guy. I hear they like good food 😉 Hands across the server room and all that...
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
July 20, 2010 at 9:18 am
So let's get at some truth here. The 4 - 1 TB LUNs were made of a 32 mirrored spindle pair that was presented as one disk spindle. I believe we were confused by the qoute for the new drive space. We interpreted the 32 spindle pairs incorrectly. Had we understood, we would have pushed back and been more specific about our request. The only error on the part of the SAN team was not explaining to us how the 32 spindles worked.
July 20, 2010 at 9:21 am
My title is DBA, but I have no official responsibility for database backups, clustering, or restores, or anything to do with hardware. I don't even have access to our backup tool. The system admins handle that. But of course, since I have the title, often times I get the feeling people think I am responsible if a database fails or has problems. Typically my role as a DBA appears to be limited to troubleshooting software performance problems and helping with database security, as well as know about the inner workings of SQL Server and T-SQL. I moreso write T-SQL, create reports, SSIS, SSAS, and create various ASP.NET applications. From my experience in the couple places I've worked at as a DBA, and the DBA's I worked with while I was consulting, the DBA's never actually had anything to do with hardware or backups. It was always the system admins who kept that responsibility, but typically system admins had limited know of SQL Server in general, which leads me to believe a DBA is someone who handles the software part of a database(code, performance in SQL itself and not the hardware(such as indexes), and how to create tables and stored procs and make applications that work with SQL.)
July 20, 2010 at 9:25 am
Question Guy (7/20/2010)
My title is DBA, but I have no official responsibility for database backups, clustering, or restores, or anything to do with hardware. I don't even have access to our backup tool. The system admins handle that. But of course, since I have the title, often times I get the feeling people think I am responsible if a database fails or has problems. Typically my role as a DBA appears to be limited to troubleshooting software performance problems and helping with database security, as well as know about the inner workings of SQL Server and T-SQL. I moreso write T-SQL, create reports, SSIS, SSAS, and create various ASP.NET applications. From my experience in the couple places I've worked at as a DBA, and the DBA's I worked with while I was consulting, the DBA's never actually had anything to do with hardware or backups. It was always the system admins who kept that responsibility, but typically system admins had limited know of SQL Server in general, which leads me to believe a DBA is someone who handles the software part of a database(code, performance in SQL itself and not the hardware(such as indexes), and how to create tables and stored procs and make applications that work with SQL.)
Sounds like you have introduced a new (or old??) topic. What IS a DBA? 🙂
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
July 20, 2010 at 10:30 am
Sounds like the SAN guy wanted a pissing contest and was extremely petty. The best he could claim was extreme incompetence. In either case, his justification is flaky and warrants a possible dismissal. That kind of behavior or mistake is just not conducive to a good work environment.
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
July 20, 2010 at 10:30 am
Whoever assigned a single spindle to the LUN didn't know what they were doing and so should no longer have that responsibility, or be properly trained on it. That's a management call depending on circumstances. It's no one's business but HR, management, and that employee.
Whoever discussed the issue at the workplace (assuming the content of the discussion went as described) should be counselled by management to no longer do so. It's no one's business but HR, management, and those employees.
But when the NEWS of this went out of the company, it's a whole different ballgame. Whoever let the news of this out of the company into the blogosphere or onto this blog has now exposed that company to litigation (defamation of character, etc.) Someone internally -- and they know who they are -- exposed disparaging information to someone externally -- and they know who they are. At that point, the "truth" potentially became a matter for a mediator or a court to decide. That person or persons should be terminated immediately. That not only isn't professional, it's downright sleazy.
Where's the professionalism people?
July 20, 2010 at 10:40 am
--------------------browser hung and reposted.
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
July 20, 2010 at 10:49 am
CirquedeSQLeil (7/20/2010)
Sounds like the SAN guy wanted a pissing contest and was extremely petty. The best he could claim was extreme incompetence. In either case, his justification is flaky and warrants a possible dismissal. That kind of behavior or mistake is just not conducive to a good work environment.
Several people have posted similar thoughts: "fire the SAN guy".
Whoa. Way to over-react!
I'd be having a quiet, positive, chat with the SAN & database people involved to sort the issues out. I don't see any need to get all disciplinary about it.
Paul
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
July 20, 2010 at 11:24 am
Paul White NZ (7/20/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (7/20/2010)
Sounds like the SAN guy wanted a pissing contest and was extremely petty. The best he could claim was extreme incompetence. In either case, his justification is flaky and warrants a possible dismissal. That kind of behavior or mistake is just not conducive to a good work environment.Several people have posted similar thoughts: "fire the SAN guy".
Whoa. Way to over-react!
I'd be having a quiet, positive, chat with the SAN & database people involved to sort the issues out. I don't see any need to get all disciplinary about it.
Paul
Even a chat here could be seen as a verbal warning and would be the minimum requirement. Multiple sides are at fault on this one. The actions of the SAN guy in some environments could be deemed detrimental to the business and even viewed as sabotage. Actions such as that carry on to harassment with several companies here in the States. Disciplinary action would need to be taken with "possible" dismissal as one avenue. A verbal warning is the minimum but a written warning in his employee file should be done. The DBA should also be included in the chat and it is uncertain what participation level the DBA had in this since the BLOG was written from one side of the incident.
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
July 20, 2010 at 11:50 am
Whether or not you fire the guy depends on what has happened in the past. If this is the first time, I'd completely agree. You need to sit down with the guy/gal and talk to them. If they've behaved like this multiple times before, I'd get rid of them.
This isn't, however, appropriate behavior.
In terms of this getting out, I read it on a blog, it didn't have a company name, department name, person's name, etc. While I agree that it shouldn't be released in detail, talking about a situation as a way to inform others isn't necessarily an issue in my mind.
July 20, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I don't think enough thought has been given to the fact that the blogger DBA has left the organization while the SAN admin is still there. In 9 out of 10 cases people usually blame the person who has left, it is very rare and nearly impossible to straighten up the situation. Blaming ex employees and those who are not there is almost a way of life in most companies, one that people do to save their jobs mostly but happens almost all the time. There are many organisations in fact who would also take great offence at people blogging on something bad that happened within and perhaps casting blame on an employee they still have (in this case it is not blame but is very likely to be perceived that way). After we leave an organisation we have to expect to hear many bad things blamed upon us that are not our fault at all, it has nothign to do with who was right and who was wrong just everythign to do with the dysfunctional nature of organisations and little room people have for genuine mistakes.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 62 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply