Re: command line vs grid control

On Jul 9, 11:31 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:

> A lot of them are paying for it though I doubt it is because
> of bullying.

I doubt a "lot" are paying for it. That is most certainly not the case in sites I know of and I do know a LOT of them.

> The reality is that for most organizations they can use the
> grid and reduce cost by keeping on salary fewer DBAs and
> making those DBAs more productive because they are not wasting
> their time writing archaic shell scripts among other busy work.

You know, that old story about the "expensive dba writing scripts" is such old hat... Whoever invented that one in Oracle marketing hasn't got a CLUE what the real work of a dba is!

> In my region a fully burdened DBA costs an organization about 200K
> per year (salary, desk, computer, insurance, vacation, sick leave,
> etc.). You can buy a lot of Grid Control for $200K and that's just
> for one year.

Yeah, and that will cost you a bundle. Plus it will only effectively control Oracle databases and will require the undivided attention of that dba to configure and use effectively. Yes, I know it can be extended to control other databases. Have you quantified how many hours of work go into that? I have: not a pretty sight.

How many sites only run Oracle compared to sites who run mixed dbs? Why would mixed sites invest such a large sum in grid to monitor half a dozen dbs while buying themselves a load of pain to modify it for the hundreds of other dbs? When Quest's tools for example cost a fraction and achieve exactly the same for just about EVERY db supplier out there?

> The ones that are buying it are not being bullied ... they are
> making decisions based on finances.

Rubbish. The ones buying it have enough budget to do so to start with and their management wouldn't know a busy dba from a flat pole!

> Viewed from the narrow window of monitoring other products may cost
> less. But they won't manage RMAN, or Data Guard, or RAC, or ....
> It isn't such a bad deal from the corporate standpoint unless viewed
> from the chair of the marginally productive DBA whose goal is job
> retention.

That is absolute rubbish and you know it. The theory that any dba who doesn't buy into the "corporate view" of Oracle marketing must be an inefficient dba only interested in job retention is quite frankly a pile of dung. Or a pile of FUD, which is just about the same. Received on Tue Jul 10 2007 - 07:51:31 CDT