Voice of the DBA

Category: Editorial

  • Selling Automation to Ops

    The DevOps movement isn’t new in some companies. It’s the same coordination and teamwork that has existed for a long time between the development and operations staffs. Developers take advantage of the skills in Operations to get standardized environments for their work, and let the Ops people manage (and track) changes. Operations people talk to developers about the challenges and issues faced in production, and the let the developers build applications that can easily be deployed. The sharing of information ensures each group knows what the other faces, and the regular contact builds bonds and respect between employees. Neither wants to let the other down or make someone else’s job any harder than it needs to be.

    However that’s not the case in many companies where developers view Operational staff as complainers that slow the process down. Operations staff see developers as wild and irresponsible, tossing code into production that they don’t need to support and haven’t tested. Both of these views are correct in that each side sees a reality in the process that makes their job more difficult.

    Ultimately I believe it’s up to developers to change things. Those of us that build the software need to respect the problems that instability causes and learn to help ensure that our changes can be deployed smoothly. The development side of an organization has more skill in tracking changes in version control, in managing the movement of those changes among environments, and in programming systems. We should be working to help push that knowledge through to Operations personnel that become responsible for our applications.

    That means we need to build scripts and tools to migrate our changes and give them to Operations. I’d recommend that we learn how to automate the configuration of our development systems, as well as script our changes. Most modern platforms allow us to programmatically make changes, so let’s do that. Then let’s take a few hours and show Operations people how to use these scripts, and let them setup and change our development environments. It will be slow at first, but they’ll learn to make changes faster, but also bring stability to every environment from development to QA to production, and can ensure we have the same configurations everywhere. We’ll have one less thing to manage, and our changes will get deployed faster, but also more consistently.

    Ultimately we all want the same thing. Better software delivered to customers faster. We want to Ship Safe, and Ship Often.

    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.

  • Data Lakes

    I heard a new phrase this week: the data lake. It comes from a Radar Podcast episode where Edd Dumbill talks about data as an asset that should be exposed everywhere in an organization. There’s a blog post on the subject as well.

    The idea is somewhat centered on Hadoop, but it could apply elsewhere. Data comes into an organization and then tends to seek and get stored with other data in a large lake. Applications are just a way of accessing the data in the lake, but all the data really lives in a large Hadoop lake of information. In some sense, this isn’t far away from the “single view of the truth” that I’ve seen plenty of organizations attempt. In a relational world this means all data moves from OLTP systems to a large data warehouse, and is then moved to smaller data marts (really warehouse subsets) and is accessed from there.

    It’s a good idea in theory, but in the practice of trying to move data around with any velocity between users, with all the copying, cleaning, transforming, and more going on doesn’t work. OLTP systems are needed because there are transactional actions that must be completed quickly and accurately. Moving this data to other systems becomes harder as data volumes and the sheer number of clients (whether users or other systems) increase. The idea that we can keep all of our processes working quickly enough that users won’t get frustrated is likely a dream. The more a value exists in a set of data, the more users will access it. The more accesses, the slower it often becomes, which starts a cycle of smaller subsets of data and applications that subsist on those small data puddles.

    Excel is probably the most common example of a data puddle that exists in your organization. A set of data, perhaps out of date, but useful enough to make decisions based on. Infinitely flexible and convenient enough that updates, changes, and more often spawn more and more puddles where the information never gets transferred back to the large lake of a database, whether that’s an RDBMS, Hadoop clusters, or something else.

    I think the idea of a large data lake is great, but in a practical sense, much of an organization’s data will never live in the lake. If it does, it will most likely be data that’s been superceeded by information in a puddle somewhere on an employee’s laptop, tablet, or personal cloud.

    Steve Jones

  • Multiple Backup Files

    I’ve been writing a little PowerShell lately that will back up databases, move files, and restore them. I’m often testing things, and having scripts to quickly and easily move files is very handy. After one of my posts recently, a reader asked if I’d considered multiple files and how to handle them in scripts. I confessed I hadn’t, mostly because I haven’t had to deal with them.

    In my career, I’ve tended to work with small to medium sized databases. I’ve had young children for a large portion of my SQL Server career and had no desire to babysit multi-hour (or multi-day) restores when things break. I know some people have been through those situations, and good for them. I just know I’ve had enough issues with the low-GB sized database, and haven’t been interested in supporting TB sized systems.

    However that likely wouldn’t be the case in the future. More and more companies are collecting and storing data that reaches into the TB, even in small companies. The rapid advances in sensors, development tools, and cheap storage means that many people are dealing with hundreds of GB in at least one of their databases. That means for a reasonable RTO, making quick backups, and maintaining good performance, multiple backup files are becoming a necessity.

    Is that really the case? Data volumes are exploding, but you many of you using this feature? I wanted to see how many people have implemented, or at least thought of striped backups. The poll this week is:

    Do you have any databases that benefit from backup to multiple files?

    I’ve consulted with clients that accidentally produced striped backups and then lost one of the files. That’s never a good situation, and it’s bad news to have to give as a consultant. However, I’m sure many of you have consciously implemented striped backups because they can perform better than single file backups and make for quicker restores. Others of you may suspect (or have tested) striped backups will help your systems but haven’t gotten around to setting things up.

    Let us know if this is a common feature you use, or is it still something esoteric that you have no need for. And if you have put striped backups in place, have you tested a striped restore? I certainly hope so. Let us know either way.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.7MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • Testing

    It seems that software always contains bugs. No matter how much time and effort is spent building an application, there will be issues. Sometimes this is because of a lack of testing, and sometimes this is because of poor testing, but in any case, the expectation that we will test our code is becoming more prevalent as we depend more and more on computer software. Users expect our software to work.

    It seems there is never enough time to properly test software after it is complete. Perhaps your deadlines are too tight, perhaps there aren’t enough resources to devote to comprehensive testing processes, but it really doesn’t matter. We will never have enough resources in our QA and testing teams to do as much testing as we would like. We need to expect this and find ways to raise the quality of our work, given those constraints.

    One solution to increasing code coverage and ensuring more testing takes place is to move some of the testing burden into the development process. While this sounds like a bad idea, overburdening developers that already struggle to meet deadlines, I’d note that part of the burden of development is fixing the mistakes they make. Perhaps a bit more testing in the development process will help us release fewer mistakes.

    The idea of regular, repeatable, automated unit testing has become quite commonplace in many software development tools and environments, but it hasn’t caught on in database development. There are some frameworks for testing T-SQL, and I’d encourage you to look at our Stairway for TDD as a way to get started or download tSQLt and give it a try.

    We can fix mistakes after our software is released, or we can fix them before the software is completed, but we’ll be fixing them either way.

    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.