Re: survey - DBA structure in your company ?
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:42:45 -0400
LOL. April Fools was yesterday. I appreciate the sentiment but the reason that I'm a DBA is that I like working with computers and databases. I recognized that I have diminished "people" skills. If I had the skills to be president of the company (and that's mostly people skills) I'd be out there making a million dollars selling terciary derrivatives to unsuspecting idiots and collecting million dollar bonuses for bankrupting my company.
Our organization is similar to the original poster's. Production DBAs in charge of infrastructure and application DBAs in charge of (or contributing to) new development.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com> wrote:
> I believe the best model is to have the Head DBA of the company be the
> President and CEO, cross train on everything, and have frequent time set
> aside by the CEO to discuss strategic information management priorities
> the entire DBA team. Paired with the Head Analyst of required company
> application functionality being the Executive Vice President and co-owner,
> this turns out to align company investments and priorities in information
> technology with the best possible compromise of short and long term goals.
> Mark W. Farnham
> Rightsizing, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
> On Behalf Of dave
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:12 PM
> To: DEEDSD_at_nationwide.com
> Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Subject: Re: survey - DBA structure in your company ?
> I would advise against number two. Unless you have at least 2 DBA's
> per environment end-to-end. The problem is coverage for sick days,
> vacations, training, etc.
> Are DBA's allowed to move between groups? ie, in your current
> environment, are DBA's allowed to switch from infrastructure to
> Personally I like to support an environment end to end. Even if you
> break them apart like the options you propose there may be some
> The best DBA group I was a part of was structured in an end-to-end
> fashion but once a year we had to juggle the environments. ie, there
> were around 10 DBA's supporting multiple environments each. At the
> end of the year you could elect to keep a couple of the environments
> but the rest went into a pool. Then we went around the room and each
> DBA picked a new environment from the pool that they would like to
> support. This solved the coverage issue and seemed to keep everyone
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM, <DEEDSD_at_nationwide.com> wrote:
> > We are a reasonably large corporation, with 650 Oracle databases. We are
> > having a bit of internal discussion going on concerning different support
> > models:
> > (1) Having separation of duties for DBAs: one DBA area in responsible for
> > infrastructure across all databases and another group doing application
> > work across multiple application databases, closer to the applications
> > their data or
> > (2) Doing DBA work in silos: one DBA would be responsible for a certain
> > of applications and databases end-to-end, responsible for all
> > and application data work for that set of applications
> > We currently have a structure like this:
> > We have systems DBAs that are responsible for the database infrastructure
> > installing the server software & patching, tuning at the instance level,
> > monitoring db server capacity, backup & recovery, adding sizing
> > disaster recovery, database creation, user & security administration,
> > level 3 support.
> > We have application DBAs that are closer to the application data, and are
> > responsible for creating and maintaining the application schema objects
> > (tables, indexes, etc), some SQL statement tuning, logical backups
> > of application objects, data loads, 24x7 level 2 support.
> > I am curious what other folks are doing.