Re: Sorry, but...

From: onedbguru <onedbguru_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <7e3767b9-1e1e-4d34-a292-93e74a6f0a0e_at_o12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>



On Jan 6, 1:10 pm, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:40 pm, TheBoss <TheB..._at_invalid.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Noons <wizofo..._at_gmail.com> wrote innews:d6914103-b528-4566-aa09-304849f44c26_at_m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 3:21 pm, onedbguru <onedbg..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> You are kidding, right?!?!?!...   I would have to categorically
> > >> disagree with you here... Maybe you haven't worked in a real shop
> > >> before... :)
>
> > > No, I haven't.  Please tell me what it is like?  Because in 40 years
> > > of IT and 25 with Oracle, I certainly have never seen any of those
> > > "real" shops and I need you to tell me what they are like....
>
> > >> data center with as many targets as they have, SAVING 9.5M is a BIG
> > >> deal in licensing cost and even personnel cost. They have more than
>
> > > What the hell has saving 9.5M - unqualified - have to do with EM?
> > > Do you know how to read English?
>
> > >> Operations cost in a data center of that size is pretty amazing. 8000
> > >> targets with > 2000 databases takes a LOT of human resources.
>
> > > Unless they are a provider of db services, there is simply NO NEED
> > > whatsoever for "8000 targets with 2000 databases".  And if they are,
> > > then 9.5M is way too low for that kind of work at that dimension.
>
> > >> windows server.  Have you paid for a HPUX or AIX license recently ?
> > >> Multiplied by 8000?  And the hardware maintenance costs?.. 9.5M is
> > >> just a drop in that bucket.
>
> > > And pray tell in what deranged univers is EM going to help reduce the
> > > number of Aix/HPUX licences?
> > > Unless the number of databases and nodes is reduced, which ha NOTHING
> > > to do with EM.
> > > Can you stay on the subject for longer than a sentence?
>
> > >> 9.5M doesn't seem so great now does it?   With savings like that,
> > >> they can employ more people (sys admin's, DBA's, operations support,
> > >> application support, power substation support) , buy more servers,
> > >> incur more licensing costs, take on more customers etc etc etc.  So,
> > >> I wouldn't be so hasty in your disparaging remarks there...
>
> > > I stand by what I said.  Unlike you, who changed tack at every
> > > sentence.
>
> > >> I have also worked for a company that was in the top 10 corporate
> > >> customers for Oracle licensing.  Believe me, data centers of this
> > >> size, you will spend much more in licensing cost than you can
> > >> imagine.
>
> > > Once again: what the heck has that got to do with EM?
> > > Wince when has EM helped anyone REDUCE the licenssing costs?
> > > Are you on this universe yet?
>
> > >> I would add that if you paid for EM or the tuning/diag pack, you are
> > >> an idiot. It is something you cannot not install and it is not
> > >> something that can be removed and it uses your resources whether or
> > >> not you "pay" for it.  These tools are an integral part of the
> > >> database engine that cannot be separated.  IMHO, Anything that cannot
> > >> be removed should be included in your licensing. Period.
>
> > > Like I said: get a clue, learn to speak and read English.
> > > Then, and only then, comment.
> > > <plonk>
>
> > <tongue-in-cheek>
> > As you said, it can't be a reduction in licensing costs, so if the story
> > told by Cerner is true (remember this is Marketing...), the savings must
> > come from somewhere else. Actually the very last sentence spoken by the
> > Cerner string pupp.., ehm sorry: spokesperson, gives a clue what this
> > could be. He said something like this:
> > <q>
> > "As our client base has continued to grow by 12% annually, we have been
> > able to increase our number of databases managed by the DBA by 30%."
> > </q>
>
> > As the annual growth of the number of databases (12%) is less than the
> > net average productivity growth of a DBA (30%), they probably have laid
> > off a number of DBA's...
> > Let's do some rough calculations:
> > First let's assume Total Cost for a DBA is a quarter of a million USD
> > and that for a DBA Team Manager is a third of a million USD.
> > To get an overall cost reduction of 9.5M USD, we should lay off 34 DBA's
> > (= 8.5M USD) and 3 Team Managers (= 1M USD).
> > Now we can calculate DBA-productivity at Cerner expressed as the number
> > of DB's managed per DBA (#DB) as follows:
>
> > (1) no. of DBA's before using EM = 2000 / #DB
> > (2) no. of DBA's after introduction of EM = (2000 * 1.12) / (#DB * 1.30)
>
> > We've estimated before that 34 DBA's are laid off, so (1) - (2) = 34 or:
>
> > (3) (2000 / #DB) - ((2000 * 1.12) / (#DB * 1.30)) = 34
>
> > If you do the math correctly from here, you'll get at an initial
> > DBA-productivity of a little over 8 databases per DBA (growing to about
> > 10.5 after introduction of EM), which doesn't seem very high assuming
> > fairly "average" databases...
>
> > </tongue-in-cheek>
>
> > --
> > Jeroen- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The talking head from Cerner stated they 'reduced capital expenditures
> by $9.5 million ...' and capital expenditures do not include labor
> costs (according to the definition) so the presumption that they laid
> off DBAs and/or DBA managers is *probably* incorrect (unless their
> definition of capital expenditure differs from the accepted
> definition).  So what could those capital expenditures be?
> Facilities?  Equipment?  Parts for the company Lear jet?  The talking
> head doesn't go into detail but he was probably reciting a script from
> marketing made to sound convincing.  We may never know how they saved
> such a bundle (or if they actually did).
>
> For the record Cerner does what we do -- offer hosted data services
> (being a remote data center, as an example).  As a remote data center
> servers, databases, switches, routers, etc. all reside in one of
> several locations owned by Cerner for the benefit of their clients.
> Each client gets its own set of databases/servers so it's very
> possible to have 8000 targets and 2000+ databases (spread out among
> prod, dev, test [or pre-prod] and qa), where some of those databases
> may be RAC or Data Guard configurations.  We use OEM and it's quite
> useful in managing instances/databases for the data center.  I don't
> know if we've saved trillions of dollars because we use it, but it is
> a fairly reliable tool.
>
> My two cents.
>
> David Fitzjarrell

This is pretty funny timing... \

On LinkedIN Oracle Senior DBA Group:

looking for 4 Oracle DBA's. One Junior, the rest Sr. Anyone want to move to Kansas City for an opportunity of a lifetime? Cerner is a...

See: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/looking-4-Oracle-DBAs-One-77941.S.87935017?qid=5e1e3e1b-a5f2-4530-a1d1-97c8e5c08ed4 Received on Fri Jan 06 2012 - 17:49:54 CST

Original text of this message