Voice of the DBA

Tag: Microsoft

  • Continuous Delivery for Windows?

    I read a bit about the next version of Windows, which is coming in 2015 as Windows 10. I’m not sure how much I care about some of the changes coming in the OS, though having CTRL+V working in a command prompt is very welcome. However I did read this piece about the people testing the Technical Previews and was a little intrigued by one quote: “… Threshold testers … will have those features and fixes pushed automatically to them…”

    Does that mean that Microsoft has re-engineered Windows to be integrated with a Continuous Delivery process? If so, then I think this is a good move. We’ve already seen SQL Server move to a pace that releases new versions every two years and bimonthly patches to fix issues. Imagine that we could get patches even more often, as bugs are fixed.

    Also imagine that we could get those bugs quickly rolled back and patches pulled if there are issues.

    I think that’s one of the interesting things for me. There have been patches in the past which caused, issues and were sometimes hard to remove. If new changes can be pushed out quickly, I’d hope they could be removed quickly. And with all the feedback that Microsoft gets from existing installations, I could even start to see custom patches built that are deployed to only certain configurations that are compatible with the patch.

    Of course, that’s an ideal view. I suspect that we’ll still see overworked developers releasing patches that not only fix issues, but cause other problems, and at times, can’t be removed. At least we’ll probably get the patch to fix the patch, a little faster than in the past.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 3.0MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • Bronze Age Development

    I was watching a presentation on testing recently where the speaker noted that on one project he’d spent twice as much time testing as coding. That sounds like an outrageous amount of time, but my concern was tempered when he said the release to production produced no bugs. I’m sure some bugs surfaced later, but I have often seen that most of the bugs, especially the incredibly annoying ones, are typically discovered quickly.

    I was reminded of that presentation when I saw this quote: “…the result was a two-year development process in which only about four months would be spent writing new code. Twice as long would be spent fixing that code.”

    That’s a quote on the development of Visual Studio a few years back. I wonder if the “twice as long fixing” time would have been reduced with better testing efforts earlier in development. It’s hard to know since all evidence on the value of testing is based on disparate projects with different teams working at different levels of experience, but I’ve run into a few people that think more testing reduces overall development time.

    The consultant who gave the presentation believes strongly in testing, not only at the application level, but also at the database level. This person has tried different levels of testing on different projects, and found that building and writing tests throughout development results in many fewer issues at release. Perhaps more telling is that when the person has performed less testing in later projects (because the clients declined to pay for it), there were more bugs in production.

    I don’t know if the total time spent on building software is less with testing occurring early than with allowing clients and customers to test and report bugs. Certainly some of that might depend on how many bugs you fix and how many bugs people must cope with, but I do know that the fewer issues people find with your software, the more excited they are to ask you to write more code in the future.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.2MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn. feed

    The Voice of the DBA 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.

  • Patching Problems

    I applied the Windows 8.1 update a few weeks ago and had some issues with my machine. Windows was fine, but I lost my SQL Server service. A few other users, including some of the SQLServerCentral community also had issues and sent me ideas, but their fixes didn’t work for me. That was OK because the problems gave me a chance to use PoSh to solve a real problem. I’ll be blogging about that in the next week.

    However the 8.1 update has caused lots of issues, and Microsoft is acknowledging these problems. That’s good, but the process gives me pause, and to a large extent, I think this makes more and more people suspect about all of Microsoft’s patching processes. I bet there are companies that feel even more justified in waiting for SP1 for SQL Server 2014 before upgrading, even though there is a chance that the patch itself will cause problems.

    This is one reason I’ve been hesitant to remain current with Cumulative Updates (CUs). Microsoft doesn’t stand behind them, with the text on each CU page that users should only apply the patch if they are experiencing specific problems. Otherwise users are told to wait for the next Service Pack, which seem to be coming less and less often.

    Any patch can cause issues, and I certainly don’t like the idea of automatic updates always being applied because if there are issues, they can become much more widespread than controlled updates. There is also the issue of vendor responsiveness. Microsoft has pushed out patches that caused issues, and while they’ve try to fix issues quickly, I don’t want to have all of my desktops, or all of my SQL Servers, down because of a bad patch.

    I don’t know how we patch in a more effective manner, but I do know that I want to have some control over updates as an end user, and I also want ways to remove patches. Moving to the app model of always applying patches over patches, and never rolling back seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

    PS – If you want better servicing for SQL Server, vote for final service packs for products still under support.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.8MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn. feed

    The Voice of the DBA 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.

  • Patching Problems

    I applied the Windows 8.1 update a few weeks ago and had some issues with my machine. Windows was fine, but I lost my SQL Server service. A few others, including some of the SQLServerCentral community also had issues, but their fixes didn’t work for me. It was OK, because the problems gave me a chance to use PoSh to solve a real problem. I’ll be blogging about that in the next week.

    However the 8.1 update has caused lots of issues, and Microsoft is acknowledging these problems. That’s good, but the process gives me pause, and to a large extent, I think this makes more and more people suspect about all of Microsoft’s patching processes. I bet there are companies that feel justified in waiting for SP1 for SQL Server 2014 before upgrading, even though there is a chance that the patch will cause problems itself.
    This is one reason I’ve been hesitant to remain current with Cumulative Updates (CUs). Microsoft doesn’t stand behind them, with the text on each CU page that users should only apply the patch if they are experiencing specific problems. Otherwise users are told to wait for the next Service Pack, which seem to be coming less and less.
    Any patch can cause issues, and I certainly don’t like the idea of automatic updates always being applied because if there are issues, they can become much more widespread than controlled updates. There is also the issue of vendor responsiveness. Microsoft has pushed out patches that caused issues, and while they’ve been responsive, I don’t want to have all of my desktops, or all of my SQL Servers, down because of a bad patch.
    I don’t know how we patch in a more effective manner, but I do know that I want to have some control over updates as an end user, and I also want ways to remove patches. Moving to the app model of always applying patches over patches, and never rolling back seems to be a step in the wrong direction.
    Steve Jones