Voice of the DBA

Tag: software development

  • The Shortage of Programmers

    The fellas
    Is there a shortage of talent?

    This editorial was originally published on May 12, 2008. It is being re-run as Steve is on vacation.

    At least at the top. I was reading the Joel on Software latest entry the other day about architecture astronauts and it seemed to make some sense in terms of developers building things they only think people will need, but the tone of the article was quite a rant. It actually sounds very different and a little angry compared to other things he’s written in the past.

    It was at the end of the rant that I saw this: “Why I really care is that Microsoft is vacuuming up way too many programmers.” and “…between Microsoft and Google the starting salary for a smart CS grad is inching dangerously close to six figures and these smart kids, the cream of our universities, are working on hopeless and useless architecture astronomy…”

    That last paragraphs (there’s more ranting I left out), seem to sum up why Joel is angry. Whether he should be or not is another story. I tend to believe that if someone can pay more and someone wants to work for more and accept the environment, they should be allowed to do so. It might not seem fair and seem to give an advantage to a larger company, but I think we should all be allowed to choose for whom we work and why we go there.

    The top graduates in any field are always in demand, really the top people in any field, and they will end up getting bigger salaries, and help to drive up the cost of labor. It happens in movies, in sports, and many other fields, and the top people get the headlines. But for every baseball or basketball player making $10 million a year, there are dozens getting $200k or $300k and that’s not reported quite as widely.

    The same thing happens here. Or at least I think it is happening here with the top graduates getting close to 6 figures. While that might push up the cost of the second tier and other CS grads (and other people changing jobs), I’m not sure it means that all programmers will cost this much. I think the salaries might rise a little over time, but overall it takes time for those averages to filter through to the HR departments and raise salaries. So most of us don’t benefit and it’s not worth getting upset about.

    In smaller companies this might happen quicker as managers or even owners have the flexibility to quickly decide to pay more for a particular person, but I’m not sure how many companies want to match the larger salaries or perks of a Microsoft or Google. Or even can match that environment. If someone wants to go to work at a large company, with a big budget, lots of resources, the prestige of being in the news, etc., why is that a bad thing?

    I guarantee you that for every 10 people that want to work at Microsoft or Google, there are some other very talented people that want to work in a smaller environment, avoid bureaucracy, have a larger impact on the company, or just live in a different place. I’m a good example of this.

    A lot of people have mentioned they think I have some talent in the database area and I think it would be cool to work for Microsoft, especially in the SQL Server group, but unless I can work from Denver, there probably isn’t an offer they can make to get me to move to Redmond. There’s a lot more to my career than money or perks.

    ‘Course I wouldn’t mind them making an offer. Being the “Voice of Microsoft” has a nice ring to it :P.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcasts

    Everyday Jones

    The podcast feeds are now available at sqlservercentral.podshow.com to get better bandwidth and maybe a little more exposure :). Comments are definitely appreciated and wanted, and you can get feeds from there.

    Overall RSS Feed: or now on iTunes!

    Today’s 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.

    I really appreciate and value feedback on the podcasts. Let us know what you like, don’t like, or even send in ideas for the show. If you’d like to comment, post something here. The boss will be sure to read it.

  • The Principle of Least Privilege

    One of the tenets of good security is that no person or process is granted more rights than it needs to accomplish a task. This is the Principle of Least Privilege, and is designed to ensure that your system is as secure, stable, and predictable as possible.

    For a SQL Server instance, this means that unless a person or process needs to perform instance level changes (configuration, patching, etc.), then they should not have instance level privileges. If a process accesses data in a database, there is no need to grant sysadmin privileges, even if they do need db_owner privileges.

    Many software packages require sysadmin access be granted, often without any justification. Developers build software as a sysadmin on their own workstation, or on a development server. They often don’t understand or realize that less privileges will still allow their software to work. As a result we find software running under elevated privileges, which can be a security risk if there are bugs or injection holes in the software.

    It’s hard to make changes later on, and it can be frustrating to argue with vendors that their software doesn’t need elevated privileges. The best way to combat this is to educate yourself and any developers you know about security.

    Adding login or user accounts does not require sa privileges. The securityadmin and db_securityadmin roles can be used. The rights to create objects in a database can be handled with granular permissions in a schema, or with the db_ddladmin role instead of db_owner.

    Work with limited rights when you can, and help other learn how to work with the minimum they need and we’ll all be more secure.

  • Deployment Failures

    Just Ship
    Shipping is good, but your deployment process needs to be solid.

    Years ago the company I worked for would patch the majority of our servers one Friday night each month. The Microsoft patches for the month, and other software patches, would be bundled up into SMS (Systems Management Server) packages and deployed to thousands of servers. We had an amazing administrator who built these packages, and it was quite an experience to walk into the data center and hear thousands of servers shut down and fans spin down for a moment before rebooting.

    That was the smoothest deployment system for vendor patches, but I worked in another place that deployed changes to a web application (the system that generated all our revenue and paid our salaries) every Wednesday night. We did this for over 18 months, over 70 deployments, pushing out changes on a consistent basis. We only rolled back three times, but we did roll back three times.

    Other jobs have had various levels of success at deploying changes. Many of the companies worked with the ad hoc, patch one machine at a time manually, process. Not very efficient, and probably not even possible at the numbers of systems many companies have today. I wanted to ask you this week how successful your company is.

    How often do you have problems during the deployment of some software change?

    Do you think that you have issues more often than not? Do you roll back when you have issues? I doubt that. In my experience, even broken deployments are often pushed forward, with the expectation that developers, vendors, or admins will fix things over the next few days. I’ve never thought that was a good plan, since we often fine broken features limping along for months or years, but organizational momentum can be hard to slow down.

    Let us know if you think you work inside of a smooth, strong deployment process, or one that’s more fragile and brittle.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcasts

    We publish three versions of the podcast each day for you to enjoy.

  • Planning

    I made it to the UK on a very smooth, uneventful, on-time trip. That’s just what I like when traveling. After arriving at Heathrow and traveling to Cambridge, I arrived at the Red Gate office just in time for lunch. A fortuitous event as I was hungry after flying all night.

    Most of my afternoon was meeting with various product groups talking about planned enhancements and changes and how these items might benefit DBAs in the field. Grant and I are usually called on for sanity checks on thoughts, ideas, and plans.

    It’s interesting to discuss with product groups how and why they want to make changes. I can’t talk about specifics, but hearing from developers and project managers is always interesting to me. We see the world differently and it’s good to give feedback on products that can make a DBA’s job easier. I haven’t always had the chance to do that, but when I do, it’s a growing experience to hear how a vendor sees the world.

    I wrote about this recently, and a few disagreed, thinking that Microsoft doesn’t listen to them. I disagreed then, and I still do. I get an opinion at Red Gate, and with Microsoft. I don’t get to make a decision, or even much of a vote, but I do get to voice my opinion. Just because it isn’t followed doesn’t mean that someone didn’t listen.

    I don’t know to what extent my thoughts will influence the products, but I did see and discuss things with a variety of people in different departments, and the discussions evolved, so I know my opinion is heard. Whether it changes things remains to be seen.