Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Where is Oracle’s Grid ?

Re: Where is Oracle’s Grid ?

From: Noons <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:06:48 +1100
Message-ID: <3ff18924$0$18748$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>


"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1072754108.418011_at_yasure...

Hmmm, a long one but worth it... thanks for the debate, most interesting.

> But not once has this thread been about Oracle's own apps and it would
> be wrong to introduce that as the issue this late in the thread.

Exactly.

> Aren't you? Who created the tables? Oracle?
> Who defined the primary key constraints? Oracle?
> Who created what few referential constraints exist? Oracle?
> And on and on and on through every single line of executing code in the
> front-end.

You gotta be kidding! You mean I buy a general purpose RDBMS and when I add my app's tables to it I'm modifying the RDBMS? What next? I buy a general purpose Sun computer, I run a program on it and therefore I'm modifying the system from Sun's specs?

> And when SAP, PeopleSoft, Siebel, Baan, etc. create schemas, users,
> roles they aren't?

Of course not. They ARE supposed to create ALL that stuff. That's what a general purpose RDBMS is for. If what they create makes sense is a different proposition!

> If you think you can separate the designer of the schema and the objects
> from the back-end in a manner different from a carburator from a Ford by
> all means do so. I gave great thought to the analogy to make it relevant
> and would like to see where you think the line should be drawn?

Where I said it should be drawn. I can create as many objects in ANY database engine as I may need. That's got NOTHING to do with mis-using the engine's software capabilities.

But if I come up with a design that is so deranged it uses NONE of the features of the RDBMS software it runs on, or it needs to create its own indexing mechanism, in order to "stay portable" or some other equally MORONIC technique or target, then I'll have a serious design problem. Which has nothing to do with the engine, backend, frontend or whatever.

> Ok lets go with your analogy. You just bought a Ford pick up truck. You
> hook it up using the trailer hitch to a pair of 30 foot trailers loaded
> with lead ingots.
>
> Are you going to blame Ford?

Of course not. I'll blame whomever didn't tell me it was a 30 foot trailer load of lead I had to carry! In which case I'd have gone for a prime mover.

But if someone tells me that in order to carry ANYTHING in that Ford truck it has to obey Ford's packaging dimension, weight, quantity and shape specifications or else it just won't fit, I'll be seriously worried about Ford!

Besides, I prefer GM. Ford to me is an acronym for "Failed On Race Day". <EG,d&r>

> on at Amazon.com here in Seattle I can assure you that I could put
> 10,000 times the load on Oracle you've seen at your best and Oracle can
> handle it.

I know that. I was told once Oracle V5 couldn't cope with an on-line stock quote feed. 15 minutes with the program that loaded the feed. It went from flat out I/O and 50% CPU to a mildly loaded system, about 10% CPU and nearly no I/O. That was 14 years ago, I can't even imagine what I'd get given modern software and hardware.

I was also once given a C program that needed to run in 18 hours and was taking 28 days(!) before they killed it(!!!). Three weeks later, it was down to 23 hours. I was teaching the C programmer how to write it rather than doing the work myself. Had it been just me, it would have been less than 18 hours by then. But I was supposed to be providing "skills transfer". Which in that place meant I had to train external contractors who would be competing with me one day... Like heck I would! That was V8.0 and a 4Tb database.

I was also once told I couldn't run a given sequence of batch programs in less than 7 solid days of processing. When I was done with them, the total runtime was down to 28 hours. I couldn't do better because they didn't let me change the EMC setup. That was 8ir3.

I can't tell you what I'm doing with 9ir2 and Forms 9 yet, still on-going. But I'm getting some truly amazing results. At least the customer thinks they are.

Not bad for someone who according to Oracle's marketing CANNOT possibly be up-to-date in skills or upgrade his skillset... But I'm not a typical case, let's get back to reality.

What is the COMMON thread in all of the above? I HAD access to the code and design and I COULD change it. Not ONE of the Oracle tuning toolsets in all those revisions would have helped me one bit had I not had this.

And that is the gist of my claim: the tuning toolset from Oracle is USELESS until 10g for anyone WITHOUT access to source code or the ability to influence changes in said code. Which is 90% of the production DBAs out there. Therefore, the existing toolset is useless to 90% of the production DBAs.

Has always been. And that Daniel, is the reality of being an Oracle production DBA. Like it or not.

> Provided I designed the schema and wrote the code.

Without a doubt. Unfortunately, neither you nor I nor an army of us can satisfy the demand out there for apps. So, let's stay with the market:

Oracle's engine MUST accept badly designed apps and let people control their SQL behaviour WITHOUT having to change design and code. Which it does NOT do until 10g.

> I disagree. It is. I've used it successfully many times. But Oracle's
> tools can't tune garbage ... garbage needs to be rewritten. And tools
> can't be used to tune what was written in C or C++ by people whose
> knowledge of SQL seemingly consists of being able to spell it.

Well, you CANNOT claim that a tuning toolset that is ONLY capable of doing its job if REWRITING app code, is a good tuning toolset. It isn't.

And I disagree with your analysis that badly written C or C++ code is eminently untunable. 10g is proof of it: you can now DYNAMICALLY tune a SQL statement and store that tuning away so it can be re-used next time the statement runs. THAT is what a tuning set should do for 3rd party apps. That is what Oracle has NEVER delivered until now, despite all sorts of claims it had.

And that is why so many people disagree with Oracle's analysis that the problem must be with production DBAs. It isn't. It has ALWAYS been with the crap tools Oracle provided. Which suited only developers and never production people.

> Why do you think you should be able to use back-end tools to tune what
> has been coded into the front-end?

No. I said ALL ALONG that I want to tune the SQL that is running on the backend WITHOUT having to change the front end. That is what 10g allows me to do and NO OTHER release of Oracle ever has.

That is what is needed. And I'll go even further: the ONLY reason Oracle has FINALLY delivered something like this is that nowadays they TOO run a lot of service bureau stuff with third party apps and they have FELT in their skins what DBAs out there have been telling them for YEARS. About bloody time they opened their eyes!

> > Nope. Sorry, it doesn't. Maybe in 10g and that is still to be proven
>
> Nonsense. Going all the way back to 7.3.4 and before there were tools
> that could have been used to make those third-party apps run better. The
> problem was that you can't tune what you can't change.

Claiming tools as good that only work if you do what you can't do is to say the least a bit contradictory... But yes, that is the problem.

CLEARLY, what Oracle provides is USELESS for REAL production conditions. Therefore, the claim they are mostly USELESS for production DBAs (until now) stays and is valid.

> You won't like it either. Because you still seem to think that a tool
> intended for PL/SQL should be able to modify compiled code written in C++.

That interpretation is yours. I said ALL ALONG that I want to be able to tune SQL. Stuff the C code. It's SQL that (mostly) needs to be tuned.

And is IMPOSSIBLE to tune with the current tools (pre-10g) unless you have access to the source code. Which makes the tools until now USELESS for ANY tuning other than the developer's. Given the constraints imposed on 3rd party users.

> I think they should ... but you are changing the subject.

Er..., no. You brought in the accountancy firms. I replied. How am I changing the subject? ;)

> Oracle's marketing is not pushing anyone out of a job but you are
> correct that a lot of people will probably lose their jobs in the next
> ten years. Same thing happened to all those that bet their careers on
> COBOL, RPT, ALGOL, shall I go on? You need to modify your skill set.

Marketing is certainly doing so. They did that in the last 4 major releases, why would they change now? And I know people will lose their jobs. That's why I (and many others) have moved away from production DBA work 8 years go. And HAVE modified our skill sets. Long ago. (Many times. Or else I wouldn't have been in this industry for 28 years. It would have been impossible.)

The last company that will teach me and others like me how to survive IT is Oracle, believe me. What they are nowadays they OWE to those of us who believed in their stuff 14 years ago. When NOBODY trusted them. Talk about front-runners, eh? Do you seriously think that was the FIRST or the LAST time we changed our skill set? Yeah! Right...

> > It's that they are
> > NOT allowed to do it.
>
> And that is Oracle's responsibility? How so?

It is, when Oracle starts claiming that it is DBAs with old skillsets that cause all the problems out there. Which is EXACTLY and PRECISELY what Oracle's marketing is trying to push. With the sheepish help of the usual Burleson-cohorts. Just have a listen to the current "standing" of said brigade...

> It isn't Oracle's responsibility. I think the root of this entire thread
> is that you'd rather complain about that which you can not change rather
> than change the things you can.

Of course not.

> Were I in your shoes, and I've been
> there a few times
> 1. Update my resume

Old hat. Done that many, many times.

> 2. Find a job where I had the control I desired

That job doesn't exist anymore in sufficient quantity. Nice, but too few.

All you can do nowadays is:

  1. Find a job in a software maker or services company and make the best you can of the skill set you're ALLOWED to use WITHIN the constraints of the project(s) you may be involved in,

or

b) Find a job in an outsourcing provider that is not sold out to 3rd world countries. Preferably in middle management so you can pas the blame to everyone except top management,

or

c) Declare yourself an "expert" through publication of a wad of books, start your own little show and hope there are sufficient suckers out there ready to believe your stuff. It helps if you have some Oracle insiders pushing your apple-cart. I wonder what their motivation could be...,

or

d) Find a teaching position that gives you access and time to play with new features. Which gives you a background on "play", but not much on "use". Not bad, though. And a LOT of fun.

Which brings us back to what IT was 20 years ago. Full circle.

Cynical moah? Yes, sure. And also been there done that. More times than any Oracle market person will ever be able to comprehend.

> And that is exactly why I am doing what I am doing and enjoying every
> minute of it.

I'm glad you did it. I took a slightly different approach: a) above. It works. They used to be called "software houses", when you and I were cutting our teeth in this IT thing. They are still around and for my money provide the best environment for anyone who wants to stay technical and with a finger on the pulse in the next 8 years. 4 of which have already gone.

After that? Well, you'll have to pay to find out what I think will happen then. Or wait here. ;)

> And yes I know the market is rotten and that in Oz it may be worse than
> other places. But there are jobs to be had for those that have the
> skills and put in the effort.

Of course. No one says that without effort one can succeed in IT. Only in show-business and politics does that happen. What I object to is having Oracle decreeing I or anyone else MUST be pushed out of the industry because we've been around a long time and we're not "upgrading our skill sets". That's crap, and anyone with half a brain knows it is.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam
Received on Tue Dec 30 2003 - 08:06:48 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US