Voice of the DBA

Category: Editorial

  • Custom SSMS

    In my career, I’ve gotten used to working with SSMS on a variety of machines. It seems that as I toiled in various environments, I’d often connect to different SQL Server hosts, or use various consoles that only had the stock Enterprise Manager/SSMS environments installed. I do like larger fonts and a few other settings, so I learned how to quickly change those items, but otherwise I often have just learned to work with the default SSMS.

    However that’s not a very efficient way to work. SSMS, and the Visual Studio shell on which it’s based, have a number of ways to customize and modify the application to suit the way you work. You can also even export and import settings to transfer them across machines.

    Most software has a variety of settings, though I still don’t change many of them. As I’ve matured in my career, I do look to customize my environments to suit me, but somewhat lightly. There aren’t a lot of changes that I make, but I suspect that’s because of the nature of my work. I tend to do what works, and I don’t often explore other settings. This week I’m wondering if you have tips and tricks.

    What customizations or add-ins do you use to customize SSMS (or other development software)?

    I’m curious what many of you do and how you do it. I don’t often explore the possibilities as I’m usually concerned with just getting work done. However I’m sure that I’m missing opportunities to work smarter. I’ve never been a big fan of the function keys, though I know some people love them. I’ve tended to rely on templates (and snippets in SQL Prompt) to work faster.

    If you’ve got idea, tweaks, or software, let us know. I’m sure that many of us would appreciate suggestions that might help ease our jobs.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.0MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • Getting IT Out of the Data Center

    The subtitle to this article says it all: IT isn’t a monolithic cost sink. I support this idea, though I don’t think it’s always accurate. Some companies just want an IT cost sink, where the data processing infrastructure is a utility. It provides a service that’s requested, technology automates specific processes, and that’s it. Certainly many companies think they do more than this, but in reality, IT is just a utility like power or water in many organizations.

    However the article points out that an Information Technology department can be so much more. IT can work with the business, improve processes, even provide strategic advantages over your competitors if you structure your environment to do so and allow it to work.

    Building a culture that encourages and promotes collaboration between technical and business people takes work. You need to find and nurture technical people that want to work with other people as much as they want to work with computers. It’s great to have highly skilled technical staffers, but you need to ensure they are willing to use their skills to collaborate with business end users.

    You also need business people that are willing to work with the technical developers. They need to be excited, and open minded about technology. They have to be willing to think outside the box, understand the limitations of current platforms, and be excited about building something in an iterative fashion with people whose primary focus is on technical work.

    I do believe, and have seen, IT groups dramatically increase the efficiency and effectiveness of an organization, but it takes time, and it requires both sides to commit to work together, in a way that ensures each learns from and compromises with, the other.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.1MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • R-E-S-P-E-C-T

    Working for one company for your whole life. Spending your career with a small company that engages and lives in the local community. Seeing your management and co-workers around town and at leisure events. Being a part of, and loyal to, a company doing business around the globe.

    This sounds ideal to me, as I prefer working for smaller companies, and I want to work for a company that respects my time. In fact, I do work for a company like that. Red Gate, is in many ways, like the German Mittelstand described in this article on work life balance in. We work hard, we do need to respond to issues outside of “normal hours”, but for the most part employees treat others in the company (and our customers) with respect. That’s the key to managing an around-the-clock, global business that you are proud of.

    It’s unlikely that most companies will change their view on how employees should be treated, and what amount of work is expected. Certainly many companies in the US have had lots of success by driving employees to work harder and longer, especially requiring this of their technology staff. Many of us that do work with computers have been well compensated, but the time lost and stress induced are high prices to be paid and many employees struggle with these requirements. There is numerous evidence that long work hours don’t result in more productivity over time, but when companies want to move forward, or systems are broken, companies expect that staff will work.

    I don’t think laws like the German Anti-Stress law that limits contact after work hours can help things. The culture of work really needs to evolve to find a balance between getting work done and respecting employees. I’m not sure I’ll see that change at any scale, but I do know there are more companies, especially smaller ones, that do want to retain and invest in their employees, respecting their time and efforts. They don’t guarantee lifetime employment, but I do think they make life better while you work for them.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.5MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • The Cost of Switching

    I read the book Space Prison a few years ago. It’s about a group of humans, attacked and left as prisoners on a harsh planet. There’s a few hundred of them, many dying in the first few weeks. They must fight just to survive against the planet’s weather, as well as it’s plant and animal life. However they persevere and get revenge on the race that left them there. Not the survivors themselves, but their descendents, hundreds of years later. It’s a story about a group of people truly investing for the future. Not one they’ll see, but one their children’s children’s children will experience.

    I thought about that when I saw a post from Ray Terrill asking for AlwaysOn Availability Groups to be a part of Standard Edition in the next version of SQL Server. He makes a few arguments, but one that is interesting is the idea that the other possibilities for databases with good HA/DR cost less. I certainly agree that the cost of switching, and retraining (or rehiring) is high, it’s all about how you approach things.

    If a company really wants to play long ball, to look to the future and start making decisions for not the next year or two, but for ten years in the future, then is the cost of switching high? Imagine I’m a medium sized company with 500 employees. I have some IT staff (10-20) and say 20 SQL Server standard instances for various things. Replacing one SQL Server that provides basic database services now with something like PostgreSQL might slow me down in development for a couple years, but my staff would gain experience, and I’d have options. I might easily be able to replace more of, or all of, my instances in the next five years. Every decision from then on might be whether I get value specific to SQL Server, or can I use another platform that costs less.

    I know that overall SQL Server provides fantastic value and there isn’t anything else that can replace it wholesale, but the base level of database services that many applications need can be provided by other products, and unless Microsoft gives us good value in Standard Edition, I think it’s a matter of time before the people writing the checks start to think about other options. Good security, encryption, and HA/DR are becoming not “nice to haves”, but necessary for many applications. However not so necessary that I think I want to pay Enterprise Edition prices for most of my applications.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 3.4MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.