Re: Project management melee

From: Noons <>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:29:08 +1000
Message-ID: <jrj8ck$i1s$>

John Hurley wrote,on my timestamp of 17/06/2012 9:36 AM:

> Seems like often those MS SQL database multiply like guinea pigs.
> Often ending up in "production" of some sort tied to some web server
> application that has been thrown together.

Very true. But that is not an intrinsic problem with MSSQL, it's a problem with those developing for it.

> Then surprise surprise they are not backed up or monitored or the
> server they are running on runs out of space or the auto magic
> microsoft patch wednesday stuff causes the old egg in the face.

If no one is taking care of the database(s), that happens for sure. If someone is, then it doesn't happen. Nothing to do with MSSQL. Do the same lot into an Oracle environment and you got exactly the same issue.

> Seems like most of the people doing MS SQL really do not understand
> that you do not really need to create a new database each time out.

But it helps to keep things compartmented and easily moveable to a different server instance should the need arise because of any observed contention.

> Or perhaps it is just easier and quicker and well no one is watching
> or caring too much.

Very true. Where I work, that was the attitude: a number of quacks calling themselves "sys admins" had access to the install cds so we ended up with the software installed in well over 100 servers. Then one day MS came in, ran a sniffer and called for the licensing to be acted on.
That was the end of the "sys admin" install fests and the start of proper database administration. Which has reduced the number of server licenses to under 20 for production at the moment, with a target of 12. We run more than one app and database per server, nothing wrong with that if one has got the horsepower.

The use of MSSQL and the quality of the apps is not the issue here. The simple fact that those apps proliferate for MSSQL and not for Oracle is the problem.

No one runs "databases". They run applications. Which might or might not use a database, for whatever reasons. If they exist off the shelf for MSSQL - and not for Oracle unless one is willing to invest in cast of thousands development - then which one gets picked every single time?

Ah yes: it's the fault of the "expensive dba", of course... Received on Sat Jun 16 2012 - 19:29:08 CDT

Original text of this message