March 9, 2008 at 10:11 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Bad Meetings
March 10, 2008 at 6:04 am
So far as the cost of a DBA goes, I think the reason why Oracle DBA's get paid more is because of perception. I think many managers are under the impression that Oracle is a database engine and that SQL Server is a toy that anyone can manage... funny that these are typically the same folks that complain about the performance of SQL Server because they employ developers to manage it without understanding the true cost of doing that..
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 10, 2008 at 9:12 am
Jeff Moden (3/10/2008)
So far as the cost of a DBA goes, I think the reason why Oracle DBA's get paid more is because of perception. I think many managers are under the impression that Oracle is a database engine and that SQL Server is a toy that anyone can manage... funny that these are typically the same folks that complain about the performance of SQL Server because they employ developers to manage it without understanding the true cost of doing that..
I think 'toy' is the wrong word. Rightly or wrongly (perhaps with some truth) SQL Server is perceived as a lot more forgiving and easier to keep running. [hehe-- sitting in a bar with my son's friends the night before his wedding, I heard lots of grief about how easy it was to manage SQL server--as you can guess, they're Oracle guys]
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
March 10, 2008 at 9:23 am
jay holovacs (3/10/2008)
Jeff Moden (3/10/2008)
So far as the cost of a DBA goes, I think the reason why Oracle DBA's get paid more is because of perception. I think many managers are under the impression that Oracle is a database engine and that SQL Server is a toy that anyone can manage... funny that these are typically the same folks that complain about the performance of SQL Server because they employ developers to manage it without understanding the true cost of doing that..I think 'toy' is the wrong word. Rightly or wrongly (perhaps with some truth) SQL Server is perceived as a lot more forgiving and easier to keep running. [hehe-- sitting in a bar with my son's friends the night before his wedding, I heard lots of grief about how easy it was to manage SQL server--as you can guess, they're Oracle guys]
I do think the point is valid though. For better or worse - a combination of better UI-based tools, lots of "packaging" and BS from the marketing types at Microsoft, and various products like SBS have given SQL Server the "aura" that it can be managed without any actual expertise at it.
It's also unfortunately due to the fact that it's substantially easier to get "certified" as a Microsoft DBA than it is in Oracle. You therefore have a lot larger DBA population (whether they're actually qualified or not), which in HR terms means more supply and therefore less demand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
March 10, 2008 at 10:02 am
In reference to The Cost of the DBA, it's due to the pricing model and the brand value that Oracle has created. This is marketplace 101 stuff. "In an increasingly crowded marketplace, fools will compete on price. Winners will find a way to create lasting value in the customer's mind." -- Tom Peters. Oracle has established itself as a product whose cost barrier to entry is substantial. And that means their customers believe that they're getting more value for their money, that the maintenance and support of their product is difficult and expensive, and that the Oracle community is a cut above. They believe it and so it is.
March 10, 2008 at 10:05 am
I think the only way you can account for the large difference is supply and demand. Evidently, a larger number of managers are willing to pay a smaller number of DBAs when it comes to Oracle. Why is that? Oracle not the career direction of choice? Managers of Oracle systems are more entrenched in mainframe style thinking? Who knows.
March 10, 2008 at 10:09 am
My comment in the meeting was that it's cheaper for SQL Server, which to some extent means that it's perceived as less valuable. You spend $100k on an Oracle install and $20k for SQL Server, who would you pay more?
There's also historical baggage that Oracle requires more expertise. I know some Oracle DBAs that are hands on everyday and know more about their systems. Part of that is the average level of knowledge about the system is probably higher for Oracle, but also it needs more baby-sitting. SQL just runs smoother, needs less day to day tuning.
I'm not sure that there should be a difference based on platform. More that it should be what you're administering, how large/valuable it is, and how many you have.
March 10, 2008 at 11:15 am
Oracle requires more resource to maintain precisely because it undermines your perceived value to do otherwise. It's all about that perceived value, as I said before. Because of its high cost, it not only attracts a certain kind of customer but they're obviously few in number. So the number of potential DBAs is already smaller right out of the gate. To further drive up cost, Oracle purposefully keeps the product "difficult" to maintain and use. It keeps the complexity right up on the surface, it keeps the documentation difficult to obtain, it keeps the support repository (MetaLink) closed to the public, it keeps the learning curve nice and steep, the list goes on and on. All of this keeps the salary of the Oracle DBA high. It's a tried and true product strategy and is no accident. SQL Server is not Oracle and never will be. The cow has left the barn.
March 10, 2008 at 7:39 pm
It's also unfortunately due to the fact that it's substantially easier to get "certified" as a Microsoft DBA than it is in Oracle. You therefore have a lot larger DBA population (whether they're actually qualified or not), which in HR terms means more supply and therefore less demand.
Well, there's one more thing and it, too, goes along with perception... and I'm not picking on anyone in particular but look at all the people on this and other SQL Server forums who have "DBA" or "GURU" or other indication that they're an expert in their login handle or have things like "Sr. Software Developer" in their signature... and then they start a question with "I'm new to DBA yada-yada-yada". Everybody and their uncle think they're a DBA just because they can actually log in to Query Analyzer or SSMS or read some damned book about it. Like I said, some of these folks deserve to carry such names in their handles or signatures, but most do not.
And, I love the titles of some of the threads... things like "Simple Question" or "Simple Query"... well, if it's so bloody simple and they claim to be a DBA, a Guru, or any other kind of expert, what the hell do they need our help for? Oh, I forgot... they're so good that they don't actually need to look in Books Online or actually try anything out.
And then there's the perennial favorite...
Wanted... Java expert with a bazillion years experience, must know Hibernate, C#, Fortan, PL-1, Cobol, and hand assembled machine language plus be able to speak German, French, and the northern dialect of south western Russian... oh yeah, if you've ever seen a book on the Book Shelf about SQL Server or even walked into the same store that has one, we're gonna use you as the DBA, too.
And, then those same managers that hired all these "experts" pitch a fit when SQL Server starts to have performance problems or it ate all of their harddisk space with LDF's. 😉 No wonder they think a DBA should only be paid as much as the janitor.
It's all perception...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply