Voice of the DBA

Category: Editorial

  • 64 Bit

    Today we have a reprint of an editorial from Nov 25, 2005 as Steve is on vacation.

    No news yet on SQL Server, but apparently the next version of Exchange will not have 32-bit support. The reason appears to be the improvements in disk I/O because of larger caches, so Microsoft if warning users to validate, test, and prepare for Windows 2003 64-bit.

    I guess is makes sense, but if the improvements are really good because of caching, why not push harder on SQL Server? I’d think that it would benefit greatly as well. The demos I’ve seen definitely show improvement in performance, but they aren’t really pushed.

    Maybe the reason is that so many SQL Servers are developer and personal editions on desktops and no one wants deployment issues moving between versions. I know there shouldn’t be any, but how many developers have told you there shouldn’t be any problems? After they’ve deployed something?

    I think SQL Server will see more and more 64-bit installations, but they’ll be the minority of installations. Not too many people are playing with it, at least not that I’ve heard. I’d love to get some 64-bit servers for SQLServerCentral.com and upgrade to 2005, 64-bit just to see how it runs. However the investment just for kicks isn’t worth it as we’re not stressing out SQL 2K installation at this time.

    However, if anyone has any pull with Dell, HP, or even Unisys, we’re looking for a site sponsor to supply a bit of hardware. I’ve got all servers from one vendor, but I’d definitely be looking to switch for the right offer

  • The Institute for Backup Trauma

    This is an editorial reprinted from April 27, 2005.

    It’s viral marketing, but it’s not bad. Livevault produced a short video starring John Cleese as the director for this institute that seeks to counsel those that have had problems with tape backups. “Such an unreliable medium”, this one is straight out there. An advertisement for Livevault, a little silly, satirical, but not that bad.

    It’s an interesting concept and one that I’ve debated with various colleagues over the years. Tape v disk. Which one is better for securing and ensuring the integrity of your data, which one is better for business continuity, which one works for your budget.

    When I started in this business, it was a no brainer. Disk was way more expensive than tape and there wasn’t even a choice. Nowhere I worked could afford to backup their data to disk. On top of that, the technology for managing disk backups wasn’t great. I remember working for a small company and we couldn’t afford a VCS system. At least, I couldn’t pry money out of my boss for one, despite the fact that the business lived and died based on the code that was written. So we setup 5 folders on the network: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and you guessed it, Friday. Under each one, the other developer and I each had our own folder and a batch job that would copy data off our desktops to the appropriate folder on the appropriate day. We erased everything older than 5 days, though we still had tapes if we needed them.

    Today, with disk being nearly as cheap and much, much faster than tape, and the need to go back more than one version in a business environment being fairly rare, it makes some sense to use disk. Microsoft released their own software, that helps with data recovery on disk, so there must be either some growth or a very high profit margin in this area 🙂

    Personally, I think that the idea is a good one, but like many new technologies that change the way a user works, this one will take some time to get used to. I’m all for users being able to recover their own data without calling an admin, especially when the admin is me, but I’m sure that there will be lots of calls on how to find the files, which version, I forgot to save it, but my machine crashed and I want to go back 3 versions, annoyed calls when the last version on disk rolls off, etc.

    But I wouldn’t give up my tape. At J.D. Edwards, we backed up the databases to disk, then to tape that night, with two copies of the tapes being made. One went offsite and one was in a rotation on site. The triple protection served me well and we never had issues getting data off disk or one of the two tapes.

    Of course, that was expensive, so it’d not an option I’ve had often. Still, one disk and one tape worked out well and these days having disk be so cheap, a second copy on disk is something I’d shoot for.

    Steve Jones

  • Hyper-V Guests

    Virtualization has really changed the way that we deal with software. It seems that more and more often I find people using virtualization for all sorts of systems, both production and non-production servers. The ability to run multiple operating systems on a single physical host means that systems are used more efficiently. It also means that more people have the ability to experiment with alternatives to the standard Windows OS that so many of us use.

    Hyper-V has gained a lot of attention over the last few years as Microsoft has tried to get people to run this hypervisor.  It seems that quite a few people have had success running Hyper-V, and it becomes more popular all the time. However, not everyone is happy, and I found a  post about Linux support in Hyper-V, or the lack thereof.

    Whether Microsoft is mis-representing their support is one thing, but this did have me thinking about a wider issue. As we build more and more systems that are virtualized, or even composed of services offered by other vendors, to what extent should the vendor provide support? Is it reasonable to say that your platform works with software x, y, and z, even if you don’t have engineers trained to support the software?

    This could become a large pain point in the future for other types of platforms, as I am sure it will continue to be an issue with hypervisors.  I’m not sure I would expect a hypervisor vendor to offer full  support for various guest operating systems, but I certainly would expect that they would work with engineers at other companies to solve issues, especially if I have a support contract.

    Steve Jones

  • We Are Not a Meritocracy

    I’ve heard a few times over the last month that the technology business ought to be a meritocracy, where people are hired, promoted, and fired based on their skills and talents. It’s usually accompanied by a mandate that everyone should  “hire the best person for the job.”

    Information Technology may be the closest we get to a meritocracy, but it certainly isn’t one. Your skills matter, your talent matters, but it’s still a who you know and who-you-get-along-with that overrides everything else. More often than not, skills alone will not carry you far. You need to have a bond with the people that hire you.

    If we were a meritocracy, we could just give everyone a test that applied for a job and hire the person with the highest score. Or just use a lottery to pick everyone that achieved a certain score. That doesn’t sound like the kind of place that I’d like to work since I place a lot of value on the interpersonal relationships with other people.

    It seems that most people really want their employees, or co-workers, to meet some minimum level of competency, continue to improve their skills, and do their share of the work. That’s reasonable and I can appreciate those qualities in people, but the thing that’s most important to me is that we get along.

    I can work with you to improve your technical skills, but I can’t usually do anything about your personality.

    Steve Jones