Re: SQL Server for Oracle DBAs

On Oct 31, 11:00 am, NetComrade <netcomradeNS..._at_bookexchange.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:19:22 +0000, Palooka <nob..._at_nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >NetComrade wrote:
> >>> I am not going to get involved in the inevitable flame wars. But
> >>> wouldn't it be sensible to hire a *competent* SQL Server DBA, and then
> >>> start a two way knowledge transfer process?
>
> >>> We all need to support the business, rather than indulge in zealotry
> >>> (this remark is *not* directed at NetComrade, btw).
>
> >> We hired a consulting company.. but we still wanted to learn on our
> >> own as well
>
> >So your company wasn't ready to hire a decent SQL Server DBA, but was
> >ready to hire a "consulting" company, who will doubtless be reluctant to
> >pass anything along? Yet you clearly demonstrate that you want to
> >acquire knowledge in house?
>
> >Does not compute. Does your company have the same objectives as you do?
>
> >Palooka
>
> We weren't ready to hire one, b/c we didn't need a FT MS DBA.
> We found a consulting company that is not reluctant to pass anything
> along.
>
> .......
> We run Oracle 9iR2,10gR2, 10g2RAC on RH4/RH5 and Solaris 10 (Sparc)
> We use RMAN and remote catalog for backups

100th post in thread!

I've been on all sides of this issue, the company has to have people able and ready to "get" what the consultant gives. And it is entirely possible that the gifts will be like the one the cat leaves in your shoe.

It seems inevitable to have impedance mismatches when implementing new technology. Even companies that explicitly try to do the right thing often don't.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
"UNIXSH" - vanity plate on slow Prius in carpool lane, holding up the
wheels of progress.