Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: command line vs grid control

Re: command line vs grid control

From: Noons <>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:09:17 -0700
Message-ID: <>

DA Morgan wrote:

> Have you looked at Oracle's customer base recently? eBusiness Suite,
> PeopleSoft, JD Edwards, Siebel, Retek? These organizations don't
> all have classically trained DBAs in depth. For someone coming to
> Oracle from SQL Server, Sybase, or Informix OEM gives them instant
> access to what otherwise would take years to learn.

What fumes are you on, Daniel? First of all, all those are products - not customers! - now Oracle's, and have been mostly Oracle based for the last umpteen years! Man, even SAP customers are mostly Oracle until about a year ago! Where did you get the idea they are newcomers? What makes you think their dbas don't know already what they have to do with Oracle?

> Agreed. So you think to that burden we should add building and
> testing shell scripts to perform routine tasks?

No, the whole point is they simply do NOT write those scripts nor do they need to, you're talking about something that used to be an issue nearly 10 years ago!
And grid has got preciously nothing to
do with it.

> But it could help with much more if they let it. You are totally
> discounting the value of ASH, AWR, ADDM, and the advisors.

No, I'm totally saying grid is a complete overkill in 90% of the customer base. And your examples above of Peoplesofft, JDE, Siebel and the others are perfect examples: ASH, AWR and ADDM are completely useless for those and so is the auto patching!

> In an organization such as many where I consult there are databases
> in the hundreds. Each of which requires manual patching. For some DBAs
> just keeping up with this is a full-time job.

Well, they are expensive fools if they are religiously applying the Oracle quarterly patches: because those require extensive application testing and there is preciously NOTHING that ANY of the grid functionality can help that testing with or reduce its cost.

> That is not what I hear from corporate IT management. They have a very
> different impression.

Corporate IT management hasn't got the foggiest about what goes on in their dba groups, Daniel. All they hear is the Oracle sales rep and his powerpoint presentations and they just parrot it out again. Most of them don't even know what is involved in applying quarterly Oracle patches and how much it is costing them in testing resources!

> Have you actually worked with OEM Grid? I don't mean the casual look on
> a test box but actually worked with it for an extended period of time
> managing multiple servers as part of a team with multiple DBAs?

Yes, we have been evaluating it for 5 months now. Still completely unconvinced by it. And guess what: our current Peopletools upgrade can't make use of it AT ALL. I wonder why?...

> And yet they continue to save pennies, at least in theory, by
> off-shoring and, in the US, trying to circumvent caps on H1B visas
> so they can bring in more people at a lower cost.

Correction: it's the hiring companies who have been making a motza out of slavetrading who are circumventing the H1B caps. Corporate doesn't give a hoot.

And in case you haven't noticed, the 200K/year dba is a myth of the y2k boom: it hasn't been the case in corporate since then. You'll have to work to find a 100k/year dba, nowadays.

> I don't have the actual numbers so I can't say that this
> is or is not true. What I can tell you is that I don't see
> anyone looking worried about it.

You won't. If there is one thing I have learned is that Oracle's middle management and marketing layers are experts at hiding problems from their top brass.

> Perhaps where you are. Where I am most companies of an size
> have Oracle on-site for their line-of-business applications.
> Including, though I expect the whining to begin immediately,
> Microsoft, which I know for a fact, just last week, was bringing
> in more people with Oracle skill sets.

And Microslop, Daniel. Ours does to: we pay lip service to the "we are an Oracle shop" but fact is: we have > 200 databases and only 6 are in Oracle... There is a WORLD of difference between
"we use Oracle" and "we use ONLY Oracle" It's the bit you also left out, up there...

As for the Oracle skill sets, of course they are looking: they already can provide a replication publisher for Oracle for their SQL Server dbs, it doesn't come out of thin air... Oh, and it works. Unlike Oracle's.

> Most SQL Server shops don't really have DBAs in the sense that
> we use the word in Oracle. Want to configure blocks size? You
> get your choice of 8K or 8K. Want to run a 10046 level 12?

You gotta be leaving in a strange world, Daniel. Not only do they have fully fledged dbas but also the vast majority of attendance at dba training school at Microsoft is Oracle dbas!

> For the vast majority of what I see here SQL Server isn't
> really on the radar screen ... not just because it is SQL
> Server but because of Windows. And Vista has set Microsoft
> back quite a distance: It is, at least in its current iteration,
> a horror story.

Cast your eyes further down the corporate chain, Daniel. Try any small to medium size company in Europe, Australia, middle East and a large part of Asia, outside of China.

> Cheaper? I'm not sure that is correct. Are you comparing Oracle
> EE with Microsoft EE? I hope not. Lets compare Microsoft EE
> with SE1. No amount of money in Microsoft technology will get
> you RAC or TAF or Data Guard or numerous other technologies.

Exactly. And few EVER need ANY of those technologies outside of the rarified stratosphere in which you circulate! As for pricing: don't forget that Microsoft provides much better tools than any of the sorry-arsed web-based rubbish from Oracle, included in the base price, parallel and partitioning included, as well as the equivalent of Dataguard and all such. Ah yes: there is also the equivalent of all the grid stuff included. Something that Oracle conveniently leaves out of the so-called EE. So yes: when comparing equivalent spread of features, not names, Microslop is substantially cheaper!

> However I would like to drag you back to what started this thread
> which was shell scripts. Written any shell scripts in Windows to
> manage SQL Server lately? No anyone that has?

Yes! I write them using SSMS and I can schedule/test/run them right there and then as a gui or as standalone, with a single click of the mouse!

You see: the FUNDAMENTAL difference nowadays between Microsoft's toolset and Oracle's is that Microsoft has concentrated in making life EASY for the dba, while Oracle has fixated in forcedly changing what a dba does. Guess which one gets the nod from dbas?

> At the rate my friends in Redmond are going they may never produce
> another version of a major product again. The place is growing
> more and more dysfunctional with each passing year.

Yet, the market share keeps improving...

> Not in Asia. <g>

Yes, in Asia. Do not confuse China with Asia. And even they will change.

> And given what I do know of Oracle's position
> in the EU market I suspect they may have more to fear from
> Microsoft's failures than successes.

's funny, but I can't see many Oracle licences in small to medium sized companies in the EU... I can see some with applications like Peoplesoft, Siebel, JDE and such. But I'll bet you anything it's because of the apps, not the db technology under them!

The day of the db as the reason for purchase is long gone, Daniel. Received on Tue Jul 10 2007 - 22:09:17 CDT

Original text of this message