Re: Are Oracle DBAs trivialized?

In message <1113757400.964127_at_yasure>, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> writes
>Jim Smith wrote:
>
>>> Here are some recent examples ...
>>>
>>> - I had to pull teeth to get my current company to switch to RMAN.
>> Why should they switch to RMAN? The currently backups presumably
>>work fine, and there will be a significant cost in terms of DBA (and
>>other time) in making the switch and testing it.
>> Do the benefits of RMAN outweigh these costs (and the risks
>>associated with the disruption of something as fundamental as
>>backups?) Almost certainly, but some figures in terms of DBA time
>>saved, shorter backup windows, faster restores etc, would help the
>>argument.
>
>You lack of experience and knowledge shine through the above like a
>laser beam on a dark night.

You really are the most appalling ignoramus. Where is the lack of experience or knowledge in knowing that actions which cost money and introduce risk need to be analysed and justified in business terms as well as technical terms.

>What cost or risk in implementing RMAN?

The cost of the time to implement and test it, and the risk of breaking a currently working, *critical* component.

>RMAN has been around for generations of Oracle and it is now the best,
>safest, fastest, and least cost back up strategy available.
>

Prove it. Its probably true, but going to management and saying "I am the DBA and rman is the solution to all our problems" is not the way to go about it.

>Oracle has put forth a no-brainer tool, no brainer in the same way that
>implementing LMTs and UNDO are no-brainers. I've yet to see a single
>argument put forward not to move to RMAN if it is available for the
>version being discussed.

-- 
Jim Smith
Because of their persistent net abuse, I ignore mail from
these domains (among others) .yahoo.com .hotmail.com .kr .cn .tw
For an explanation see <http://www.jimsmith.demon.co.uk/spam>