Good Argument for IT Director - Your thoughts...
-
Hello:
I am pursuing this forum to seek advice from people out in the field. I am currently writing up an argument for an IT Director where I work why I should be granted access to the SQL Server 2000 we have in-house.
Currently, I am a software developer for this department that is part of a very big corporation. Believe it or not, there IS NO DBA on the premises! Yes, I can't believe it either. I have taken a sort of an Administrator role in conjunction with my regular development duties. I saw a need for some administrative tasks, since there was none implemented when I came on board!
There are a few other developers here but they conduct absolutely NO administration of the SS2k. I am afraid if the lack of administration goes any further, disaster is sure to occur.
To make a very long story short, I would like to know some very good and sound arguments why someone, maybe I, should be granted access to the SQL Server. Arguments like: access to the logs, being able to reboot the machine, analysis, etc., I believe are some. I can keep on listing some more, but I am sure you all know what I am seeking.
Thus, without further, I would like some advice and further information from you, the experts on this initiative, that is, I feel, is of high importance: Why should someone have access to the SQL Server box with administrator rights, and not just remotely as a developer.
I look forward to your responses,
EB, MCP, MCAD
-
I'd have to agree that not having anyone administer the SQL Server is a recipe for disaster. Despite it being easy to do, or relatively easy, you still need a DBA to perform work, watch the server and ensure that it is running well. This can be a sysadmin, a full time DBA, or a remote DBA, but it should be a DBA.
That being said, I don't like the idea of a developer being the admin of the live box. There is too much temptation to fix something on the fly, tweak something, etc. when you are running two roles. Some people can separate their admin duties from their dev duties, but most developers I know cannot.
My recommendation would be to hire a fulltime DBA if you have the workload or contract for a remote DBA service. There are starting to be lots of them out there. If neither of those work for budgetary reasons, then you still need someone and if it is you, you should be held to strict guidelines for ensuring availability and stability above getting code changes implemented.
-
Hi,
Being a developer and an admin at the same time has also another drawback: you'll get called for small and large problems, all day long. A DBA has quite a social job.
It's very difficult to keep your mind at your development work while the phone keeps ringing.
-
Another argument from my own experience.
I am not in the IT department at all, but am sa to all our servers.
While we don't have a dedicated SQL Server DBA at hand, our network admins (who play part-time DBA) usually ask me before doing something to the servers. This is not a perfect solution, but it works quite well. However, the drawback is, when we have inhouse security or IT auditions. There is absolutely no argument in my case why I am (or should be) member of the sysadmin role that an auditor would accept. Well, actually we tried once, the auditor made a big note in his memorandum, and when our board of directors got this to read, we had a really funny loquacious time to explain ourselves. After that we decided that I am removed from sysadmin role for the time of the audit.
That being said, I agree with Steve that you (or your company) should opt for a full time DBA.
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
You really want to help or do you want access?
If you really want to help, build a case of what is wrong -- what needs doing, the kind of problems (as specific to this situation as possible), and express your concern for the situation. Perhaps offer to "help if I can".
I guess it depends on how sensitive the data is on the system, but if you came to me leading with the idea of 'why I should have access' my alarm bells would go off asking 'why does HE (or SHE) want access' and might overshadow what is wrong about the server.
It is quite possible if you go make the case that there is significant business risk to the current situation that the IT Director will turn and say "you sound like you know something about DBA tasks" andyou have your opening. It is equally possible you'll find out there is some other plan, or that the director is clueless and reckless.
But my personal recommendation is expressing a carefully thought out, not-in-panic analysis of the situation based on its specific circumstances and risks is the responsible thing to do.
I'd also not recommend it be the kind of generic warning that Steve mentioned ("not having anyone administer a SQL server is a recipie for disaster"). That may be true, but starting off on that note with the guy who apparently decided to create that situation is going to raise his defenses and he won't listen to the rest.
Start with "I've noticed we have some issues with this box and wanted to make sure you are aware of the problems they may be creating". Keep in neutral and make sure you first listen to your own arguemnts from the perspective of the guy who was responsible for creating it - will it sound helpful or accusitory, constructive or critical?
-
Hey, why not present the results of SQL Server Best practice analyzer? If they are meaningful and you think that they can help you.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=B352EB1F-D3CA-44EE-893E-9E07339C1F22&displaylang=en
Jonathan, thanks again for the link. That's a handy tool.
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
Give a brief list of some of the tasks being done by a DBA. refer to SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide on MSDN ( http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/sql/maintain/operate/opsguide/sqlops4.asp 
. Overall Ask following question to the director.
If there is no DBA for SQL Box, who will be responsible following
A. SQL Patch management (SQL Bugfixes by MS)
B. Disaster Recovery (Physical / SQL Box / Data disaster )
C. Database Optimisations
D. Data Security
In most probability, you would get a single answer, SQL DBA !!
-- Amit
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply