June 4, 2010 at 6:45 am
I'm in a gov't organization where we have SA's and DBA's. Most of the DBAs are not comfortable with doing things on the servers themselves, because "the SAs have always been responsible for that". This includes things like shutting down servers (esp clusters) for planned maintenance, etc. DBAs are responsible for only SQL things on those servers.
I'd like to find out if how we are doing things falls in line with the way other places work.
So, how do you'll separate the duties of SA and DBA on SQL Servers? Whose responsible for doing what on those servers?
Thanks!
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
June 4, 2010 at 8:27 am
Even I work for Govt firm of sorts and its same here as well..
SA's handle stuff like windows patching..DBAs do the DB patches,hotfix..
DBAs do have windows logins to server with admin rights but perform only DB related activities.
Regards,
Raj
June 4, 2010 at 8:52 am
SA's do the windows patching. DBA's typically do the SQL patches. Server configuration is a cooperative effort (disk alignment, partition sizes, raid types, installation dirs, pagefile size, etc).
I have been in places where all the DBA could access was SQL server - that greatly minimizes the duties. However, the DBA needs to be able to apply patches and reboot the server if need be (as two examples).
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
June 4, 2010 at 9:31 am
WayneS (6/4/2010)
I'm in a gov't organization where we have SA's and DBA's. Most of the DBAs are not comfortable with doing things on the servers themselves, because "the SAs have always been responsible for that". This includes things like shutting down servers (esp clusters) for planned maintenance, etc. DBAs are responsible for only SQL things on those servers.
I could have written your post because the organization is exactly the same in my agency. SAs manage the physical servers, Windows, etc. and DBAs manage the database software. We coordinate on server configuration e.g. disk config, OS edition, amount of memory, etc.
Greg
June 4, 2010 at 10:06 am
In my organization we have SAs and one DBA (me).
SAs configure and maintain the OS layer, including patches, and I maintain the SQL layer.
I'm in the Administrators group for the server and I can configure and reboot it if I need to.
Whenever there's a maintenance downtime, I have to warn users and find the appropriate time window, even if it's Windows patching.
In other words, the server belongs to the DBA, who's responsible in front of the users.
-- Gianluca Sartori
June 4, 2010 at 10:07 am
CirquedeSQLeil (6/4/2010)
SA's do the windows patching. DBA's typically do the SQL patches. Server configuration is a cooperative effort (disk alignment, partition sizes, raid types, installation dirs, pagefile size, etc).I have been in places where all the DBA could access was SQL server - that greatly minimizes the duties. However, the DBA needs to be able to apply patches and reboot the server if need be (as two examples).
Ours is basically the same, but we don't always get what we request as far as configuration of the physical server, disks, etc.
June 4, 2010 at 11:42 am
My setup if the same. As far as server rights, that was a bit of a battle at first but a couple of 5:00AM calls from me stating a disk was flashing (RAID 10) or the server hit the blue screen of death, and could they get in to reboot before the start of business, access was granted. Overall though, it was their hardward and OS but my application (SQL). I knew what my limits were with my skill set about the OS and network and never over-stepped it and they did the same with respect to SQL. We had a peaceful coexistence (then I left).
-- You can't be late until you show up.
June 4, 2010 at 11:56 am
We're a small shop (one SA / one DBA) so responsibilities tend to overlap. Historically the SA was responsible for building, patching (OS and DB) and configuring the servers while the DBA (me) was given admin rights in order to make config changes and do fail overs and restarts.
_____________________________________________________________________
- Nate
June 9, 2010 at 6:44 am
I work for a fairly large insurance company and we have SA's responsible for the OS and the Servers and the disks and all things configuration oriented. It works out. They get to be very good at their job and I don't have to worry about it. It is very important to communicate with them, buy them a beer occasionally, in order to be able to get what you need out of them. SQL Server has a few quirks that are going to affect how you set up serves, so you'll need them to deviate from whatever standards they might have, so you need to build up that trust and companionship so that you can rely on each other.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
June 10, 2010 at 11:01 am
I'm on my third company as a SQL Server DBA and all three do things differently.
My first company was on contract with a U.S. Government organization. I was the DBA and did just about anything needed. Commonly, I switched out bad/failed disk drives. I also put together and ran Cat-5 cable. If I wanted to test/learn something, I could grab an unused server, rack it, and load it with approved software. Since we weren't allowed to have pagers or cell phones at work and couldn't remote into the servers, we (SysAdmin, Application Admin, and myself) all gave each other admin passwords. We were a tight group and were confident in each others ability. So if I got called in because of a Database issue and found it to be something else, I could call the responsible admin and have them walk me through troubleshooting/fixing of the issue. That way the problem didn't have to wait until the right admin drove all the way into work (saved the admin some trouble also). I put together a list of scripts that I could direct one of the other admins to run on SQL Server to help troubleshoot issues in case they were called in and it was my issue. My list also described how to shut down and restart SQL Server.
My next job I had admin access, but couldn't 'touch' the hardware. I was allowed into the data center to check on my servers, and I could stop and restart services, but that was about it.
My current job, we don't even install SQL Server. We provided the SysAdmins an install disk and directions. Then once the server is built, we review it and run a few scripts to set up some of our specific databases, processes. Once the server goes 'live', we can't even stop and start the SQL Server services.
I have found out that responsibilities coincide with the number of admins for each position. My first job there were three admins - one SysAdmin, one application admin, and one DBA (me). So we had to be able to cover for each other or we would not have been able to have time off. My second job, there were two DBAs and 3 SysAdmins. So the responsibilites/permissions crossed over less. My current job, we have 11 DBAs and lots of SysAdmins, so there is no need to be able to cover/assist each other across jobs.
-SQLBill
June 10, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I work for the failry big investment company and, as many mentioned above, SA's support everything related to Server(s), except SQL Server related work, which are maintained by DBA. While this is strictly enforced for the known reasons for Prod Environments, DBA very often reboot/failover QA and UAT machines when required for daily activities....
June 11, 2010 at 2:37 am
RP_DBA (6/4/2010)
We're a small shop (one SA / one DBA) so responsibilities tend to overlap.
And I'm in an even smaller shop where essentially I'm both DBA and SA! The arguments I end up having with myself... 😛
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply