Category: Editorial

  • A Wide Variation in Skill

    I was helping someone recently clear up some confusion about the encryption structure of their TDE databases. This individual wasn’t sure about how the various keys were used, which ones needed to be backed up, and which keys needed to be restored. As this was an online discussion, anyone could read the posts and add their own thoughts. There was a point where one person chimed in that the process was really easy and anyone should be able to complete it.

    I do think that working with TDE is easy, but I also think that its easy for me because I have experience and practice with the technology. There are nuances to undestanding how the piece fit together and what needs to happen in order to ensure your system operates smoothly during both deployment and in disaster recovery situations. Since mistakes can result in lost data, I understand why people might feel intimidated or nervous, but once they practice a few skills and gain knowledge, I find they get the confidence to proceed.

    Their fear is often because of ignorance, which is understandable. All of us have things to learn, especially in technology where the rate of change is quite high. Before we learn something, or even while we’re trying to understand concepts, various tasks might seem quite difficult, or even complex. These might be simple tasks, such as restoring a certificate or sending a set of objects through a Powershell pipeline or writing a unit test.

    Just because you can do something doesn’t mean everyone can. Just because one person finds a task easy doesn’t mean others won’t find it complex. The knowledge that each of us gathers over time isn’t consistent or easily mapped. We all learn different skills at different times, in varying orders and to fluctuating depths. One of the very frustrating things about technology is that there isn’t a defined path for a particular technology, or even job. Someone that begins working with SQL Server might learn T-SQL first, or backups, and not get to the user/role/GRANT security model for some time. Even then someone might easily add logins and users to roles, granting permissions, but being unaware of the difference between REVOKE and DENY, or be confused by the WITH GRANT option.

    I am not excusing the inability of someone to be competent at their job, but I do think that ignorance deserves some understanding and tolerance. While you might be annoyed that someone doesn’t know how to take a COPY_ONLY backup, I would hope you would treat them as a colleague that needs to learn a new skill and not chastise them if this isn’t something they’ve every dealth with before. If they can’t learn this skill and make mistakes over and over, then that’s a different situation and perhaps they aren’t competent. We should understand ignorance once or twice, but after that the person might need to find a new job.

    I see plenty of people that are constantly working to improve their skills and get better at their jobs. I also see plenty of people content to continue their career with the same level of knowledge they’ve had for a long time, unable or unwilling to change and produce better code or faster systems. I also see plenty of skilled individuals treat both groups of people with the same level of scorn, contempt, or shame. I saw a comment posted recently about how Linux supporters will often mock people using Windows and then deride the same people for asking questions when they switch to Linux. I would hope that our SQL community would treat others better than that.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 4.5MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and Libsyn.

  • The New DBA is a Developer

    I was reading a short piece from Mike Fal recently and it struck a chord with me. I started working with computers as a developer, really a hack programmer as a kid. Friends and I would build small games or hack existing ones to change things. Eventually I was paid to write code, and moved into data work because the pay was better. That was 25 years ago, and I haven’t regretted the change since. In fact, I’ve enjoyed working with data.

    Even as I managed data, I always ended up writing some code. Not code, code, like an application that others could use to accomplish a task (though I have often done a touch of that), but rather code to help me as a DBA. I had code to check servers and record values. I had code to move backup files around and generate restore scripts. I had code that would build reports for other DBAs. Some of this code are queries, some are more complex scripts in PoSH (or older VBScript), some could be C# or some other language, but it’s all code. Fundamentally, the code isn’t much different from the code that application developers write and deploy to clients, web servers, or mobile devices.

    There always seemed to be a separation between a DBA that could script something and a DBA limited to simple DML queries. The latter was much less efficient, less productive, less capable of managing a larger environment. As I look to the future, I’d say that that DBA or sysadmin that can’t write some code, that is mystified by the concepts of Puppet, Chef, or even unattended SQL installs, is less likely to find good paying, enjoyable, desirable employment. There will be exceptions and less capable people will find work, but given a choice, I think businesses will prefer to get the coding DBA.

    Mike brings up great points in his piece, and despite my history as a developer, I’ve build bad habits over the years. I used to carry around a CD, then a flash drive with helpful DBA scripts on it. I didn’t always have a good test process. Part of this was the lack of good modern tools, part was laziness, but just like Mike, I’ve started to think of anything I do as an effective developer would. I make sure things get done, and I don’t try for 100% solutions. I try to get something working, find the problems and fix them, adjusting as I learn and the system changes. I try to build unit tests and ensure that as I change code, I’m not introducing silly bugs because I’m focusing on today’s issue while neglecting the requirements I had to meet last week.

    Above all, I use version control. That should be a no-brainer for a DBA. We preach backups and restores all the time. Why should our code be any different? These days I’ve adopted git and I use it extensively. Whether on Github or VisualStudio.com, I’m ensure I’ve got my code backed up, and practice restoring regularly on other machines. I create repos as soon as I create a folder to work in, and commit regularly. I don’t revert often, but when I do, it’s nice to have that backup in my VCS.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 7.0MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and Libsyn.

  • The vNext Bleeding Edge

    Microsoft has had early access programs for years. I worked at a few companies that were a part of the TAP (Technology Adoption Program) program, and we would get access to code early in exchange for providing feedback and working closely with Microsoft engineers. This was interesting, as well as good and bad. We could move early to implement new features, but we also had the struggles of dealing with code that wasn’t always working as expected.

    Microsoft has stared a new program, the SQL Server Early Adoption Program (SQL EAP) to allow companies interested in moving to SQL Server v.Next as soon as possible. I suspect lots of ISVs that might want to build products for SQL Server on Linux might get involved, but there will also be some large corporations that want to influence the platform and get certain features changed or prioritized. The benefits note that participants can come to the SQL CAT team lab to test things, work with product managers, and get separate support if they go into production. For companies that might feel the next version provides some new benefits,

    Microsoft gets all sorts of feedback, but working with a small group of product managers or engineers is a good way to get your voice heard above others. I know that MVPs get the chance to exert similar influence, and at times this can be valuable. However, one has to keep in mind that this is the chance to voice opinions and thoughts, not votes. Microsoft isn’t necessarily going to implement something you want just because you convinced some engineers it’s a good idea.

    Getting into the program does mean that your are bound by an NDA, and that you may have a separate EULA for production workloads. However, if your company likes being on the bleeding edge, and wants the chance to upgrade early, perhaps you should consider applying. I would say that participation in the TAP program was a beneficial experience for my employers. Perhaps the SQL EAP will be for you as well.

    Steve Jones

     

  • How Much Code Can You Review?

    When I was in college, I mostly wrote my own code for assignments (and fun), turning it in when I thought it was done. At some point I had a class that started to adopt more software engineering practices, and I was forced to get my code reviewed by a peer before handing it in. This was an interruption to my workflow (and more work since I had to review other code), but it did allow find mistakes I had made and seemed to improve my grade.

    In one of my first development positions, I had to get two people to review my code before I could submit it for deployment. A humbling and painful process at first, but over time I became used to the idea. I’m not sure the quality of code improved, but it was more readable, more in-line with everyone else’s code, and as we learned techniques that worked well, all developers adopted them quickly.

    These days as I talk with various customers and clients, I find that code reviews are handled very inconsistently. Some companies require them, some have automated processes, some have ad hoc reviews, and everyone has ways to circumvent the system. Certainly emergency patches need to be made at times, often with little review, but I will say that it seems the more common a set process and practice is, the less issues a customer has.

    If you review code, or have your own code reviewed, on a regular basis, I have question for you.

    How much code can you review for a deployment?

    The question I’m asking is about your process and habits. Is it worth reviewing every bit of code? Perhaps there are objects that you don’t worry about as much as others, or certain developers that receive more (or less) review of their code. Perhaps seniority makes a difference as to the level of scrutiny. If there are problems found in QA and changes made, is there a way to re-review code? I’m wondering today about your process. Share what you can, and if you want to do it anonymously, please feel free to send me a note at sjones (at this domain).

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 5.0MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and Libsyn.