Return-Path: Delivered-To: 2-oracle-l@orafaq.com Received: (qmail 24538 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2006 17:18:46 -0600 Received: from freelists-180.iquest.net (HELO turing.freelists.org) (206.53.239.180) by 69.64.49.119 with SMTP; 12 Dec 2006 17:18:44 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 83551569033; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29732-07-2; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 70C4756906F; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id B1BF0568E8F for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29445-04 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from alnrmhc14.comcast.net (alnrmhc14.comcast.net [206.18.177.54]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 5DB2B564693 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from cpq2 (c-71-206-175-151.hsd1.va.comcast.net[71.206.175.151]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc14) with SMTP id <20061212231737b1400mgk90e>; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:17:37 +0000 From: "Michael Kline" To: "Oracle-L" Subject: Splitting production and development/test at the DBA level? Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:17:30 -0500 Message-ID: <014901c71e43$b317ec00$65011fac@cpq2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_014A_01C71E19.CA41E400" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-archive-position: 43097 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: mkline1@comcast.net Precedence: normal Reply-to: mkline1@comcast.net List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: oracle-l X-List-ID: oracle-l List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at avenirtech.net ------=_NextPart_000_014A_01C71E19.CA41E400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've got a client that is considering splitting devl/test and production at the DBA level. There are only about 8 Oracle folks, and that would put 6 on Production and 2 on test and there are about 70-80 databases. This all has something to do with a Gartner paper that was some 7-8 years old. Has anyone tried this before and what were the results? Migrating new code forward just sounds like it will be horrible because now TWO DBA's will be involve and probably be almost totally unaware of what's coming and the like. The strange thing is, this client is into "pools" big time where you get a DBA from the pool to work on what ever. That is pretty much how they were doing it now. Yet, being "in line" with this pools thing, they now want to make two pools and then make it so prod would have no access to devl/test and devl/test will have no access to prod. It reminds me of like WalMart type stores. "Sorry, that's not my department." It's got the DBA department quite concerned. The paper was supposed to say this was the thing to do, and perhaps would make SOX happy. Michael Kline 13308 Thornridge Ct Midlothian, VA 23112 O: 804.744.1545 Fax: 804.763.0114 ------=_NextPart_000_014A_01C71E19.CA41E400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’ve got a client that is considering splitting devl/test and production at the DBA = level.

 

There are only about 8 Oracle folks, and that = would put 6 on Production and 2 on test and there are about 70-80 = databases.

 

This all has something to do with a Gartner = paper that was some 7-8 years old.

 

Has anyone tried this before and what were = the results?

 

Migrating new code forward just sounds like = it will be horrible because now TWO DBA’s will be involve and probably be = almost totally unaware of what’s coming and the = like.

 

The strange thing is, this client is into = “pools” big time where you get a DBA from the pool to work on what ever. That is = pretty much how they were doing it now. Yet, being “in line” with = this pools thing, they now want to make two pools and then make it so prod = would have no access to devl/test and devl/test will have no access to prod. = It reminds me of like WalMart type stores. “Sorry, that’s not = my department.” It’s got the DBA department quite = concerned.

 

The paper was supposed to say this was the = thing to do, and perhaps would make SOX happy.

 

Michael = Kline

13308 Thornridge Ct

Midlothian, VA  23112

O: = 804.744.1545

Fax: 804.763.0114

 

------=_NextPart_000_014A_01C71E19.CA41E400-- -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l