Click here to monitor SSC

John Magnabosco

SQL Server Development and Data Security

Tough Decisions

Published Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:08 AM

There was once a thriving business that employed two Database Administrators, Sam and Jim. Both DBAs were certified, educated and highly talented in their skill sets. During lunch breaks these two DBAs were often found together discussing best practices, troubleshooting techniques and the latest release notes for the upcoming version of SQL Server. They genuinely loved what they did.

The maintenance of the first database was the responsibility of Sam. He was the architect of this server's setup and he was very meticulous in its configuration. He regularly monitored the health of the database, validated backup files and regularly adhered to the best practices that were advocated by well respected professionals. He was very proud of the fact that there was never a database that he managed that lost data or performed poorly.

The maintenance of the second database was the responsibility of Jim. He too was the architect of this server's setup. At the time that he built this server, his understanding of the finer details of configuration were not as clear as they are today. The server was build on a shoestring budget and with very little time for testing and implementation. Jim often monitored the health of the database; but in more of a reactionary mode due to user complaints of slowness or failed transactions. Deadlocks abounded and the backup files were never validated.

One day, the announcement was made that revealed that the business had hit financially hard times. Budgets were being cut, limitation on spending was implemented and the reduction in full-time staff was required. Since having two DBAs was regarded a luxury by many, this meant that either Sam or Jim were about to find themselves out of a job.

Sam and Jim's boss, Frank, was faced with a very tough decision.

Sam's performance was flawless. His techniques and practices were perfection. The databases he managed were reliable and efficient. His solutions are "by the book". When given a task it is certain that, while it may take a little longer, it will be done right the first time.

Jim's techniques and practices were not perfect; but effective and responsive. He made mistakes regularly; but he shows that he learns from them and they often result in innovative solutions. When given a task it is certain that, while the results may require some tweaking, it will be done on time and under budget.

You are Frank's best friend. He approaches you and presents this scenario. He must layoff one of his valued DBAs the very next morning. Frank asks you: "All else being equal, who would you let go? and Why?" Another pertinent question is raised: "Regardless of good times or bad, if you had to choose, which DBA would you want on your team when tough challenges arise?"

Your response is. (This is where you enter a comment below)

by Johnm

Comments

 

johnmrqz said:

That is a tough one... we'd have to let go of Frank.
March 27, 2010 1:31 PM
 

johnmrqz said:

I was rushing out the door for a weekend trip when I left my first response. Now that I have a few more minutes, and all kidding aside, let me post a real answer.

I'd keep Sam on board because his description portrays a proactive and efficient professional. The by-the-book comment implies familiarity with standards and practices. Validating backups means he is reliable and responsible.

Jim seems like a bright mind, fast learner, and out-of-the-box-thinker, so we'd probably miss his talents when tough challenges arise but, we'd have to make do.

People I'd want on my team would be part leader and part learner.
March 30, 2010 12:36 PM
 

gbn said:

Offer both of them reduced hours/part time?
March 31, 2010 5:23 AM
 

BuggyFunBunny said:

Frank first (who needs another manager, anyway; it always seems that reductions leave managers with ever shrinking number of reports with no concomitant improvement in productivity), then Jim.  Keep Sam.  You didn't mention the "quality" of their database design, assuming that such was their task, but Sam sounds like he would be superior at that.  Or put it this way:  Yoda or Luke?
March 31, 2010 10:17 AM
 

BuggyFunBunny said:

In _my_ haste, I left out the major consideration, implicit in the question.  How would the remaining DBA deal with the other's database/server?  Sam would, likely, know how to deal with the warts Jim left in his machine.  Jim would, likely, be flummoxed by the sophistication of Sam's machine.  He might learn him some good stuff, but more likely drag Sam's machine down to his comfort level.  Sam, on the other hand, would pull Jim's up to his better standard.  

I think I'm done now.
March 31, 2010 10:23 AM
 

timothyawiseman@gmail.com said:

It sounds like they have two different but overlapping skill sets, and I would respond to the question.  What does the immediate future of the company require from the DBA?

If it required reliable maintenance and insuring that solutions more or less as they were now were required, the without a doubt keep Sam (the stolid, dependable, maintener) and let Jim go.

On the other hand, if the immediate future showed major changes to the database, then I would reverse that and keep Jim (innovative, quick learning, on time and under budget...)

From the very brief description given, it sounds like Sam is better with clearly defined tasks that rarely change.  But Jim is more innovative and better adapts to change.  Which of those you need depends on what is coming up in the near future.
April 1, 2010 1:52 PM
 

timothyawiseman@gmail.com said:

BuggyFunBunny, of course we are talking about fictitious people, but based on the short description given, I would beg to differ on this point:

*Sam would, likely, know how to deal with the warts Jim left in his machine.  Jim would, likely, be flummoxed by the sophistication of Sam's machine.*

I suspect it likely be the other way around.  Some people that are used to dealing wtih clean predictable situtions fail horribly when put into areas that are less clean, less predictable, and more quickly change.  The reverse though is rarely true.  People used to dealing with things that are poorly implemented and unpredictable often do very well (thouth they may get bored) administering highly regimented and predictable situtions.

If you are implying that Sam is of overall higher skill level than Jim is, then the description seems to go against it.  The descriptions seems to be that at one point Sam was clearly more skilled than Jim, but that they have now become overall close to equal.
April 1, 2010 1:55 PM
 

Editor said:

Both!

Who needs a DBA anyways. All you need is one good developer ;)
October 8, 2010 2:56 PM
 

Editor said:

Both!

Who needs a DBA anyways. All you need is one good developer ;)
October 8, 2010 2:56 PM
You need to sign in to comment on this blog

About Johnm

John Magnabosco manages the Data Services Group at one of the fastest growing companies in the United States. He is also a Co-Founder of the Indianapolis Professional Association for SQL Server (IndyPASS), Co-Founder of IndyTechFest, the author of the book titled "Protecting SQL Server Data" and contributing author of "SQL Server MVP Deep Dives Volume 2".
Latest articles
Checking Out SQL Backup Pro 7’s New Automatic Backup Verification
 Wouldn't it be great to offload the daily chore of checking the integrity of your production... Read more...

Chuck Lathrope: DBA of the Day
 Chuck Lathrope was a finalist for the Exceptional DBA of the Year award in 2009. We contacted him to... Read more...

Backups, What Are They Good For?
 Pixar recently confessed, in an engaging video, that Toy Story 2 was almost lost due to a bad backup,... Read more...

C# Async: What is it, and how does it work?
 The biggest new feature in C#5 is Async, and its associated Await (contextual) keyword. Anybody who is... Read more...

SQL Server 2012 AlwaysOn
 SQL Server AlwaysOn provides a high-availability and Disaster-recovery solution for SQL Server 2012. It... Read more...