Voice of the DBA

Author: way0utwest

  • Becoming an MVP

    I see a lot written about the Microsoft MVP program and the various impressions the MVPs leave in the community. It seems that the view of MVPs is mostly positive in the community, and I hope that I do my part to further that feeling with my actions.

    However, one shouldn’t work to become an MVP. Personally I think it’s not a goal for anyone to make or work towards. The MVP award is a recognition of your community service from Microsoft. It does consider what contributions you make technically to help others, but this isn’t a test to pass or an evaluation of your skills.
    I view the MVP as a side effect of the work I do. I enjoy writing about SQL Server and speaking at events to try and help people get better at their jobs, inspire them to try something new or solve a problem in a different way. I enjoy helping others, and being a part of this amazing SQL Server community.
    You can read articles on becoming an MVP, Microsoft gives guidance, and there’s even a Wiki article on it. However I’d say you shouldn’t even worry about this. Do the things you enjoy, the things that give meaning to your job. If Microsoft things those things are worth of the award, great. If they don’t, you should still feel a sense of accomplishment over what you’ve done.
    Steve Jones

  • Risky Backups

    This editorial was originally published on Jan 13, 2009. It is being re-run as Steve is away at the SQL Intersection conference.

    The other day I was working in the forums at SQLServerCentral and saw a question about someone doing backups and having issues. While myself and others were trying to help, I recommended that this person not run multiple backups to one file. It’s something I’ve done for years and I’ve recommended, but the person followed up with a question about why I think it’s important.

    My first answer was that it’s an unnecessary risk. If something happens to the file and you’ve stored multiple backups in this file, then you lose all the backups. I’ve seen this happen with older versions of SQL Server and after that time I made it a point to never stick multiple backups in one file. To me it’s creating a single point of failure for no reason.

    But as I wrote this, I started to question myself a little. I know that some people like having the same filename every day as it makes restores simpler, especially if they’ve scripted things.  I know that file systems and hardware is often redundant and files are generally safer in the short term than they were in the past, so is my advice outdated?

    I still don’t think so because in my mind there’s a great risk of issues here and that outweighs the convenience. Not to mention that some simple  scripting can make restoring to something like QA easy enough for anyone to run.  However I’m curious what the rest of you think about storing multiple backups in one file.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcasts

    Everyday Jones

    The podcast feeds are now available atsqlservercentral.mevio.com to get better bandwidth and maybe a little more exposure :). Comments are definitely appreciated and wanted, and you can get feeds from there.

    Overall RSS Feed:  or now on iTunes! 

    Today’s podcast features music by Everyday Jones. No relation, but I stumbled on to them and really like the music. Support this great duo at www.everydayjones.com.

  • Stairway to Development–Coming to Oregon

    SQL Saturday #265 is coming to Portland, Oregon on Nov 16, 2013 and the day before, on Friday, we have another SQL in the City Seminar. Grant and I will be in the city talking about database version control, automated build and test, and database deployment best practices.

    This is another of our SQL in the City Seminars. We’ve had 4 this year so far and we’re looking to do a few more this year and even more in 2014. This is a free, half day event where you can come and learn about some of the tips and techniques that Red Gate has learned about database development.

    I’m not sure who will be covering which sessions, but we have three that all build on the theme of better deploying software. We’ll be presenting:

    • Team-based Database Development with Version Control
    • Automated Build and Test
    • Best Practices for Database Deployment

    We walk through the steps for better tracking code, testing it, and then moving it from one environment to the next.

    These are intermediate level concepts and suitable for DBAs, developers, managers, anyone that wants a smoother software delivery process.

    Join us if you’re in the Portland area on Nov 15 by registering today. It’s free, but we have a limited amount of space.

  • SQL Server Knockoffs

    This editorial was originally published on Mar 17, 2009. It is being re-run as Steve is away at the SQL Intersection conference.

    I thought this was an interesting post from John Dvorak on the Microsoft business model. I’m not sure it’s the end of Microsoft, after all, many corporations would not go with non-standard software since it might cause compatibility issues, and the cost of the software might be noise compared to all the questions, complaints, and potential retraining of employees.

    But that could change. And I think that Microsoft is in a bit of a downward spiral. One of their main products, Office, is essentially done. What more can you do to those applications that people need? Even Outlook hasn’t really added much value for a few versions. Most of us view these types of products as commodities, and a few more features don’t really add a lot for us.

    Even the OS is starting to disappear a bit for many people. We live our lives in applications, on the web, or with applets, like Twirl or TweetDeck, that really interact with the Twitter service. Twitter is really what matters, not the OS or even the application I am using.

    So what about the relational database? Are we heading down the road of the RDBMS becoming a commodity? Right now SQL Server, Oracle, and DB2 all constantly strive for a good amount of feature match between them. Each comes up with something new in each release, but how many of these new features are compelling? Already I think a lot of people are perfectly happy with SQL Server 2000, and the only reason to move is because of support.

    What if we get to the point where a MySQL or PostgreSQL type knock-off that runs T-SQL comes along and implements 80% of what SQL Server 2005 has. Would people switch to that engine? I don’t think people would completely convert their environments, but what about the 20% of your servers that are barely used, or are used for homegrown applications? If I sold you a “SQL Server knock-off” for $500, would you buy it instead of the $1895 for SQL Server Standard? What if it wasn’t priced by the CPU?

    I think SQL Server is the best RDBMS around right now, from a feature standpoint, price, performance, and support. Sure it has bugs, sure it has issues, but overall it’s a great database at a great price. It has ETL features, reporting, and most importantly, an extremely well performing database engine. However I can see someone trying to enter the market as a competitor in this space, just like the “netbooks”, hyperspace and theThinkOffice suite are trying to do to general business applications.

    After all, it’s easier to “copy” an application than innovate, and I think at some point the list of copied applications will go beyond Word and Excel.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcasts

    Everyday Jones

    The podcast feeds are available atsqlservercentral.mevio.com. Comments are definitely appreciated and wanted, and you can get feeds from there.

    You can also follow Steve Jones on Twitter:

    Overall RSS Feed:  or now on iTunes! 

    Today’s podcast features music by Everyday Jones. No relation, but I stumbled on to them and really like the music. Support this great duo at www.everydayjones.com.