Neon Enterprise Software Blog

Welcome to Neon Enterprise Software Blog Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Data Management Today by Craig Mullins

News, views, and issues involved in managing data as a valuable corporate asset.

Are DBAs Obsolete?

Before we go any further, let me briefly answer the question posed in the title of this blog entry: "No Way!" OK... with that out of the way, let's discuss the issue...

Every so often some industry pundit makes news by declaring that DBAs are obsolete or that we no longer need DBAs. Every time I hear this it makes me shake my head sadly as I regard just how gullible IT publications can be.

These types of proclamations are typically based on the increasing autonomics of database systems. And yes, DBMS software is becoming easier to use and some of the things that used to require manual effort are now automated. But that does not obviate the need for DBAs!

It is not possible for all of the duties of the DBA to become obsolete. For example, how can a DBMS make changes to its database structures (for example, adding new columns to support a new business requirement)? How would it know what to add - and what data type to choose? Database design, both logical and physical, will be needed (along with knowledge of the business) to create and maintain properly running database systems.

Additionally, what about backup and recovery? Would you trust a DBMS that had a corrupted database to recover itself? If it was that darn smart why did it become corrupted in the first place?

The job of the DBA will morph and change — as it has already during its 30+ years of existence. But that doesn't mean it will become obsolete... just different.

Database administration needs to be practiced in a more rigorous manner. Too often the DBA is viewed as a fireman. This is not meant to disparage firemen, of course, but the fireman is called after the fire has started. Database administration practiced as a management discipline would be focused on prevention first, cure second. This requires a set of best practices for database implementation and management to be designed and followed. But I’m getting ahead of myself a bit here. Let me back up.

There are really several layers of misunderstanding and poor DBA practices running rampant across the industry — and they need to be addressed. The most pervasive these days, I think, is the situation facing DBAs working for organizations where the Internet rules. As companies move from traditional development to e-business development there is the inevitable change in mindset that creates mad rushes. This is the "get it done NOW!" mentality. This is bad for the DBA because this approach is bad for database design. Why? Applications are temporary, but the data is permanent. Organizations are forever coding and re-coding their applications — sometimes the next incarnation of an application is being developed before the last one even has been moved into production. But when did you ever throw away data? Oh, sure, you may redesign a database or move from one DBMS to another. But what did you do? Chances are, you saved the data and migrated it from the old database to the new one. Some changes had to be made, maybe some external data was purchased to combine with the existing data, and most likely some parts of the database were not completely populated. But data lives forever — and as such we need data architects and DBAs to design things and implement databases properly each and every time.

So, the Internet causes rapid delivery schedules which can cause database administration to be an afterthought. Sometimes smaller organizations are trying to implement database applications with no DBAs. Well, not really — an application developer acts as a pseudo-DBA and performs just the basics to get the application delivered. Meaning, database design, performance, availability, and maintenance will suffer. Whenever you hear of a system being built and managed without a DBA I can guarantee that the system will be riddled with problems.

And this is just one of the many problems — another is the whole “proactive versus reactive” argument. Many so-called mature organizations approach database administration only as a “reactive” chore. This gets back to my fireman metaphor. Oh, yes, everyone says they are “proactive” but that is usually a great big lie. Many DBAs are up to their ears in paperwork, design tasks, and performance tuning – with a line of folks out the door of their cubicle looking for help. Now, how many of these DBAs do you think are being proactive and looking for more “potential” problems so they can fix them before they occur? None! They are all trying to put out the fires that are on their desk.

The bottom line is this: As portions of the DBA job are automated the DBA can focus on those things that have been ignored or poorly addressed (e.g. database design) and can also be freed up to tackle bigger problems… such as, business problems, data quality issues, metadata management, and so on.

Published Tuesday, July 07, 2009 9:27 AM by cmullins
Filed under: ,
Anonymous comments are disabled

About cmullins

Craig S. Mullins is a data management strategist for NEON Enterprise Software. Craig has extensive experience in the field of database management having worked as an application developer, a DBA, and an instructor with multiple database management systems, including working with with DB2 for z/OS since Version 1. Craig is also an IBM Information Champion and is the author of two books: "DB2 Developer’s Guide" and "Database Administration: Practices and Procedures."

This Blog

Syndication

News

Be sure to visit my web site at http://www.craigsmullins.com
Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems