March 5, 2008 at 10:26 am
The tasks include windows update/patch, storage migration, change SQL Service startup account or password (if the account/password is not managed by DBA), firewall rule change, etc.
I have been working in different companies and see different reactions.
1. DBA is involved and plans for the maintenance task.
Reason: It is a DB Server, if DBA does not care, who cares? Or who cares as much as a DBA cares.
2. DBA is notified for the change, but not involved for planning and testing.
Reason: It is not DB related change.
3. DBA is not notified.
Reason: The change should be transparent to the applications. SQL Server is an application from the OS/Storage/Network admin’s perspective.
What do you think? What do you do at your work place?
Vivien
March 5, 2008 at 10:55 am
I've seen all 3... but I think it's a mistake to do anything other than #1 and that's what we do at work. DBA does a backup just before the changes... DBA does a set of performance tests just before and after the changes... DBA checks the database for damage just before and after the changes... etc, etc, etc.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 5, 2008 at 1:49 pm
There is a change management meeting every week at my job. Everyone finds out there what is happening over the next month, so you know what will affect you. Then we work with the primary on the change (usually the system admins).
-SQLBill
March 9, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I agree with both of you. Great points. Just like database backups, over 99% database backups will not be used, but we still keep backing up for < 1% chance of risk.
Spending a few minutes on planning to make sure no outage or less impact is better than fixing after the business gets affected.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply