Voice of the DBA

Tag: software development

  • Developer Deployment Frustrations

    This editorial was originally published on Sept 7, 2012. It is being re-published as Steve is at DevConnections.

    Why don’t developers like SQL Server? Probably a few reasons, but I’m sure this is one that really frustrates them. I found a Connect Item that was titled:  Why is Deploying SQL Server 2008 R2 sooooo FRUSTRATING?!!  There really is a question there, asking for guidance on  which versions of SQL Server are available and recommended for developers to include in their applications.

    When SQL Server MSDE was released, it seemed that Microsoft was looking for it to be included in small applications that might then be upsized to a Standard or Enterprise edition of SQL Server. It seems to me that this is really the market for Express (the evolution of MSDE) and that it ought to be simple for a developer to not only deploy this with their application, but also setup basic maintenance easily.

    I sometimes think that the software developers at Microsoft get lost in their own specialty and forget just how frustrating it can be for the rest of us trying to use their product in new ways. They forget that many of us want to deploy simple solutions easily, and not spend a lot of time working out the nuances of software setup.

    I’d like to see Express not only have a very simple setup that works across multiple versions of Visual Studio, but also baic maintenance plans built in that allow full and log backups (if needed), along with index rebuilds with a simple switch set as a part of setup. A few registry keys or XML config changes could set paths or frequencies.

    Making life simpler for developers is a worthwhile investment for the SQL Server team. It makes them more likely to include it in their applications. If you can add a one-switch replication to sync to a Standard or Enterprise SQL Server, they might think Express is required in every application.

    Steve Jones

     

  • A Software Warranty

    This editorial was originally released on Oct 21, 2012. It is being re-published as Steve is traveling.

    Years ago I worked in a large company on the operations team. We were responsible for all production issues for the 6,000 people and the assorted machines, devices, and applications that come with a large workforce. There was a department that was aligned with our group that focused on engineering and various development groups that built different applications. The engineering group was good at working closely with the production team to ensure smooth deployments, but they weren’t on call and would at times respond slowly to develop solutions when problems occurred. They were, however, better than the development groups who often sent code to be deployed, and accepted bug reports back, but provided little support or assistance for problems with their code.

    I ran across this link from a DevOps person called You Write It, You Support It in the Brent Ozar, PLF newsletter. The piece makes a case for the problems that occur with some deployments, like a lack of, or surplus, of logging, switches to turn features on/off, error handling, and more. It’s a pretty good description of typical problems I’ve often seen, and it calls for developers to support the features that they write, even in production systems.

    I like this idea, though I don’t think that it should be a continuous expectation with developers required to support their code forever. I would like to see developers giving their code a “warranty” of sorts, perhaps a couple months of priority support when code is deployed into live environments with developers taking responsibility and responding to calls, even after hours.

    There are arguments to be made that developers’ time is better spent enhancing applications and applying their creativity to new ideas, but this leads to a human frailty. Too often we view a job finished as a job completed, and that’s not always the case. Doing a job well means more than completion. It implies a level of craftsmanship and pride in the finished product, both from the developer and the client.

    Developers should write code that works. If it doesn’t, then it’s not really finished and should be fixed. With that contract in place, we usually find that the developer spends a bit more time ensuring the product is built in a quality way that reduces the need for much support.

    Steve Jones

     

  • DevOps at Microsoft

    I’ve been watching Microsoft for quite a few years, with my career being tightly intertwined with the company for 25 years.  I’m amazed by the way the company has changed in the last five years. It’s probably been longer than that, but from the outside, the last 5 years have been surprising. Certainly the way Microsoft produces software is a process worth studying by almost any organization with developers. There are some scale advantages Microsoft has, and their mission is to reach and touch people at a level far beyond what many of us deal with, but there are lessons to be learned.

    There’s a great piece that shows some of the ways in which Microsoft is practicing DevOps in their own software development. I like that the focus isn’t just that developers do more, but that operations staff are involved in working closely with the development teams. In fact, there’s a quote I like that notes in addition to technology changes and habits, ” we found that the organizational changes and cultural shifts required to embrace these practices have been just as significant.”

    As I talk about smoothing the database development pipeline and creating efficiency in the process, I want people to be aware that cultural change is required. My employer, Redgate Software, can sell you tools that solve the technology challenges, but if you don’t change the way you build software in your culture, with your staff, the tools don’t help. At best they make a few tasks easier for developers, but you will still have issues releasing your software consistently on your schedule, whatever that may be.

    There is also the emphasis on developers deciding when to release. In Microsoft’s domain, this probably works, but not likely for many line of business applications in organizations. However, the focus should be getting changes to customers quickly after development. The sooner they see features, the sooner they can provide feedback on whether the software works as expected or changes are needed. This quick feedback also means that developers have the architecture and flow of the code in their recent memory. Always a recipe for smoother continued development and quicker bug fixes.

    Testing isn’t emphasized much, though I think as developers become more accountable, and they can get changes to customers quicker, they’ll start to want automated testing that allows them to check for regressions, as well as ensure requirements are being met. Microsoft has the advantage that many of their internal teams can actually use the end product, something that isn’t always easy for those of us in other industries.

    DevOps works. The principles are sound, and it doesn’t matter if you’ve followed the principles for decades (maybe under another name) or just started a new process by asking for more coordination and collaboration from your teams. Learn to build a coherent system with your developers and operations staff, throughout your software development process, and your whole organization will benefit.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 4.6MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and Libsyn .

  • Capture the Flag

    I’ve read a lot of science fiction in my life. Quite a few books talk about cyberspace and the interactions of humans and software. In Snowcrash there are AI systems defending systems. The Unincorporated Man series has AI systems that not only have sentience, they hide their capabilities from humans. Numerous other examples exist, including movies such as The Matrix, which popularized system programs independently able to evaluate and react to security issues.

    Science fiction is here, showcased recently at the DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge. You can watch a bit about the challenge or read a short article about what happened. Overall, it’s amazing. Seven systems ran various pieces of software that were targeted at finding vulnerabilities, patching their own and exploiting those of other systems. All without human intervention.

    In a visualization, I picture a team of Agent Smiths (from the Matrix) seeking out rogue programs that seek to wreck havoc inside of the operating environment. Or maybe a series of automated developers tracking down bugs, such as buffer overflows and correcting the code to remove the issue.

    Is this where static code analysis is heading? Automated repair, or maybe even real time repair? Could we actually have a software bot that might run through your Entity Framework (EF) application, tracking down SQL Injection vulnerabilities and correcting them? Even at a rudimentary level, I can imagine a bot that examines incorrectly parameterized queries and rewrites the code to properly manage the .NET code. Perhaps at some point we’ll even have bots that can understand queries from some application and build stored procedures on the fly that accept parameters, are called the next time a particular method is called, and can even grow to evolve with schema changes.

    I know the simplistic ways in which we might build this code would have their own sorts of issues, but I’m hopeful that at some point we’ll have semi-intelligent bots that can fix code to ensure it’s secure and reliable, while keeping the creativity originally built by the human developer.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 3.2MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and Mevio .