December 11, 2003 at 4:16 am
Im busy with a project that uses our data warehouse as the source for a commission system. The data warehouse is ORACLE (29 TERRA)
Now during the design phase its me "SQL Server DBA" vs the FIVE ORACLE DBS's.
Boy and are they protective over their database.
You can't , you are not allowed we cannot allow this are all I have been hearing the whole day!! Don't you hate it!!!
If it aint broke don't fix it!
Andy.
December 11, 2003 at 10:24 am
Good luck! I manage 3 SQL DBAs, 4 DB2 DBAs, and 2 Oracle and boy do we get some good debates going! Enjoy.
Steve Jones
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones
The Best of SQL Server Central.com 2002 - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/bestof/
December 11, 2003 at 12:31 pm
One of the first lessons from my mentor was to answer "No." to any question.
Seriously, Oracle guys are more protective and I understand that. I've worked on several Oracle databases as an administrator and it is different. And, yes, lots of room for discussions. Reminds me of the old days when IBMs fought Apple.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Generally you don't see that kind of behavior in a major appliance.
Patrick
Quand on parle du loup, on en voit la queue
December 11, 2003 at 11:49 pm
Becuase their development cycle on such expensive platforms!
We have DB2/SQL/Oracle and the SQL DBAs are the fastest to accept change and execute new requests. And having DTS at their disposal, boy are they faster than the others, to the point where when we have to move data from DB2 to Oracle, we use, yes, you guessed it SQL in the middle.
You should see how mainframe/DB2 DBAs act when hit by a request to change something. I am glad , i decided to execute our Data Warehouse on SQL Server .. And with an 8CPU and SAN storage it rocks with half the price of others ...
December 12, 2003 at 4:56 am
sometimes the windows-based "fraction" of DBAs/SysAdmins should look a little bit over the borders and be equally "protective" (good wording!) as their colleagues from other systems.
to my opinion the colored, iconed, point-and-click, easy-to-use windows featurers (which i personally appreciate much!) tend to bring people to the opinion, that everything should be possible and just "no issue".
that's maybe a reason why windows-based installations have the reputation of working less effective, have more downtime, and so on: just because everyone is an "admin" and everything "is possible" ... 😉
best regards,
chris.
December 12, 2003 at 5:34 am
Hi
Do you know why windows-based installations have gained the reputation of working less effective, have more downtime, and so on?
Because as you say it’s so easy that just about anyone can create a SQL Server DB on their desktop. After a few months this DB can become a "Mission Critical" DB but is running on an unstable desktop.
When I joined this company we embarked on a consolidation exercise and the only SQL Server Databases allowed are on my Unisys Boxes.
We even scan our network to enforce this policy. Even if is Easier, Cheaper and faster with SQL Server it does not have to be LESS Controlled.
If it aint broke don't fix it!
Andy.
December 12, 2003 at 8:13 am
Why should this surprise anyone? Any large production system is usually treated with great care. As Patrick mentioned, the answer many DBAs default to is "NO!" regardless of the product in use. You can get yourself into trouble with any product.
Because SQL Server was later to the high-end party, it is still viewed with suspicion by those on "older, established, high-end-capable" products. Think about it - as a SQL Server DBA, wouldn't you want greater scrutiny of someone writing a system in MS Access that touched your SQL Server database than someone who has developed in SQL Server all along? There is nothing inherently "wrong" with Access, but if it can impact my carefully built and maintained SQL Server, darn right I want to know exactly what you intend to do to my system. Why should you expect a developer/DBA in another system to know the internals of your product well enough to at least do no harm? That could be a dangerous assumption.
All of this is not just about DB products. The attitude is common for many topics and industries.
Larry "will prostitute himself on almost ANY database" Stein
Larry
December 19, 2003 at 9:31 am
I have had the pleasure to work extensively on Oracle and SQL Server and thought this thread was great!! Yes, Oracle DBA's are more protective and I think the SQL Server DBA's could learn something from them. I used to be in a mixed batch of 11 DBA's and we had some of the most heated debates!! I think there is a lot lost with process and Enterprise solutions with the SQL Server crowd. This isn't everyone of course, but there are plenty of people out there calling themselves DBA's because they can point and click a database into existance. Regardless of the platform, data is data!!
I have a hard time where I work because of the 'point and click' mentality. I prefer to think about and investigate what is going on before a decision is made. The data is viewed as a piece of the application w/out even thinking 'Hey, it may be used for something else too'........Anyway, I sense a soap box under my feet so I will step down for now..
Jeff
"Keep Your Stick On the Ice" ..Red Green
December 19, 2003 at 3:45 pm
Tend to agree with the last post. SQL Server DBAs in general, could learn a few things from more mature DBA techniques practised on Oracle/DB2/etc. That being said, I'd put a SQL database up against either of the others and I'm confident in 95% of the cases, it would run as well.
Of course, managing some larger Unix systems has given me some appreciation for places where Windows and SQL Server could grow. Hot add memory and CPUs would be nice.
Steve Jones
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones
The Best of SQL Server Central.com 2002 - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/bestof/
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply