Re: Potential newbie - do we need a DBA

In article <5fs70m$vpt_at_news1.infoave.net>, rranieri_at_mail.infoave.net says...
> We are evaluating software which will require our shop for the first time to
> use a relational database. Currently in the running are Oracle and MS SQL
> server. We will probably use NT 4.0 on dual or quad pentium pro's. I have
> two questions.
>
> 1. Is the NT/Oracle combination stable enough to run mission critical
> applications?

NT is a very stable and strong environment for Oracle. And that is coming from a Unix bigot. But, I see NT's place in the marketplace and I also see the commitment vendors and developers have to NT.

Now, you just need to define what your MCA is for you. It may or may not be the same as my definition. You need to weigh your application, how mission critical it is, how scalable it needs to be, what integration you require. Etc., etc., etc. Everything I do that is mission critical, I would NOT put on NT. Not today. But, I work on solutions that require hundreds to thousands of users. With other variables in their to determine that Unix is the platform requirement.  

> 2. Will we need a Data Base Administrator (with lots of experience) or can we
> train an in-house programmer as our DBA?

Since you said Mission Critical, I will say "Yes", get a DBA. Don't try to skimp on the budget or trick yourselves into saying you don't need a DBA. You will last several months and then sooner of later you will either have to call someone in to save the game or you and the project will be in trouble. Too many companys today are asking themselves this question and far too often, I see them wondering how they got themselves in a mess.  

-- 
Neil Greene				"Money doesn't always bring happiness. 
Senior System Engineer / Oracle DBA	People with ten million dollars 
are  
MCI Systemhouse, Inc. 			no happier then people with nine 
million 	
email: ngreene_at_laoc.SHL.com		dollars."  --- Hobart Brown