|
Relational databases are the underpinnings of
virtually every modern business enterprise, from
small businesses through Fortune 500 companies.
They’ve long provided the infrastructure for
information storage and management; when they’re
functioning optimally, they hum along quietly in the
background, supporting players to the enterprise’
core competencies. In recent years, businesses have
flocked to the Web, expanding their competitive
market reach by establishing a vital internet
presence – and the databases that support those
enterprises have become dynamic repositories for
ever vaster amounts of data. In response, database
architecture has necessarily evolved to handle the
exponential jump in the volume and type of data
handled.
Despite the essentiality of smooth database
function, these systems are often taken for granted.
They’re a bit like the immune system, in the sense
that they are silent powerhouses, toiling invisibly
on behalf of an enterprises’ health. Yet ignoring
little bobbles in function – sniffles in the
database, so to speak – can lead to potentially
devastating consequences for both the database and
the enterprise it supports.
Enter Database Administrators (DBAs). Experts in
database configuration, optimization, and
maintenance, DBAs monitor the pulse of an
organization’s database system, boost performance,
diagnose problems, and operate on and rehabilitate
those systems whenever necessary. Adapt at new
installation, systems upgrades, and performance
tuning, DBAs are also the go-to’s for data analysis
and back-ups. And should disaster or data corruption
strike, DBAs jump in – like EMTs of the IT world –
to drive the recovery efforts. Thanks to the breadth
of their knowledge about an organization’s data
storage, DBAs are also often called upon to liaise
with data architects, applications developers, and
end users, and to play a role in network
administration and trouble-shooting.
It may seem a given, then, that every enterprise
reliant upon databases should have a DBA (or
several) on staff. In fact, many mid-size to large
businesses do – yet the surprising reality is that
often internal DBAs are inefficiently deployed or
under-utilized. Generally speaking, at least 40% of
a DBA’s workday is spent on repetitive, low-level
administrative work. The DBA’s tasks may include
checking alert logs, monitoring performance logs,
tuning, applying patches, performing upgrades,
installing agents, validating the backup and
recovery process, following change management
procedures, and addressing requests from
applications developers, O/S administrators, and end
users. While these tasks are critical to database
maintenance, and therefore, the support of an
organization’s infrastructure, they rarely relate
directly to a company’s core revenue – generating
competencies. The irony is that while DBAs are
invaluable as sets to an organization’s IT support
team, the Return on investment (ROI) of relying
exclusively on internal DBAs is often poor.
Fortunately, a savvy solution exists with Remote DBA.
Companies can better utilize their internal DBAs by
allowing them to focus on more strategic,
enterprise-specific projects, while outsourcing
routine monitoring and maintenance. Smaller
operations that were previously unable to support an
internal DBA can likewise benefit from
cost-effective Remote DBA support. The true beauty
of Remote DBA is the degree to which support can be
customized for each client, and the host of added
benefits the arrangements provides as a matter of
course.
Added Value: Realizing ROI through Remote DBA
Greater Oversight:
Whether or not a company employs an internal DBA,
Remote DBA support affords the benefit of additional
eyes on the database environment. Moreover, the best
third party vendors staff their remote teams with
senior-level DBAs. That translates to DBA support
with deeper, more comprehensive knowledge and
troubleshooting precision – at a more competitive
price – than ever could be had with a single
in-house DBA.
Mentoring Opportunities:
Outsourcing IT development, for example, is
often done as a series of discreet projects – a
factor that tends to detach vendors from the
enterprise. Remote DBA is unique in that the team
takes a more dedicated, holistic approach to the
client, its systems, and its needs. The remote team
necessarily functions as an extension of the
in-house staff, and Senior DBAs are uniquely
equipped to provide internal employees with training
and mentoring. That’s especially valuable for
companies adopting new technologies, or for those
that employ only junior-level DBAs.
In its 2007 IT Salary and Skills Report, Global
Knowledge reported that IT professionals tend to
have great concern for developing new skills, and
that training opportunities were linked to job
satisfaction. That the remote DBA team can
potentially provide that training, while freeing
in-house DBAs to work on new challenges, is a boon
for overall productivity and employee morale.
24x7 Monitoring:
Remote DBA teams have the capacity to provide
round-the-clock support. That’s rarely feasible for
an enterprise’s in-house staff, both from logistical
and cost standpoints. Yet it’s also increasingly
necessary, particularly from companies that provide
a 24-hour interface with customers via the Web.
Rapid Response and Problem Resolution:
Since Remote DBA programs focus exclusively on
administrative support, the response time for user
request, performance-related issues, and development
support is typically enhanced. Problem resolution is
quickly achieved in a 24x7 environment.
Cutting Edge Software, SANs Exorbitant
Investment:
Beyond the upfront costs of database monitoring
software and licensing fees, there are the hidden
costs of employee training in that software,
upgrades, and further training when configurations
change. Moreover, owning software does not guarantee
its optimal use, or protect against its
obsolescence.
A better strategy for most companies is to leverage
the resources of Remote DBA vendors, for whom
maintaining the most state-of-the-art tools makes
sense. Plus, precisely because Remote DBAs focus on
database management, they maintain sophisticated
competency in the optimal use of new software.
Remote DBAs are also in a unique position to advise
companies as to when in-house software upgrades
truly do make sense, and can configure that software
to mesh seamlessly with existing systems.
Detailed Snapshots of Actual Work:
Remote DBA vendors can – and should – provide a
detailed account of the work they perform on their
client’s systems including case tracking and
resolution analysis. Such detailed reports would
typically overload the internal DBA, who tends to be
pulled in many directions. Yet that to the Remote
teams’ concentration on database function and
management, such accounting is quite feasible, and
provides valuable insight into a company’s overall
IT health.
Greater Bang for the IT Budget Buck:
CIOs remain under pressure to reduce costs, or
manage challenging budgetary constraints.
Compromising on database management is shortsighted;
yet retaining in-house DBAs – particularly to handle
the more mundane administrative tasks – may not be
cost-effective. Outside consultants are rarely the
solution – they are expensive, and it is difficult
for an individual consultant to master an
enterprise’s “big picture” needs, particularly if
they are called upon only sporadically for
troubleshooting.
Though it may seem counterintuitive, companies can
engage an entire team DBAs – including those with
senior-level expertise, for significantly less than
the cost of an internal DBA. And because Remote DBAs
are highly specialized, and have greater exposure to
various databases, monitoring programs, and company
situations, team members know how to address issues
with greater accuracy, and troubleshoot with
precision. Less guesswork means less downtime, and
fewer unnecessary expenses. And companies gain the
time and peace-of-mind to focus on their core
revenue – generating competencies.
Hidden Costs of Internal DBA
The Single Point of Failure Risk:
When companies employ just one DBA, that employee
becomes the repository for a tremendous amount of
information related to all of the enterprise’s data
storage. That places an inordinate amount of
responsibility on a single person, who cannot afford
a single misstep, while drastically reducing the
likelihood that other employees could respond
effectively to database-related concerns. Issues
that occur during a DBA’s single vacation day or
extended leave could snowball into emergency
situations. The very prospect of a DBA’s permanent
departure from a company compounds all single
point-of-failure risks.
Lack of Advancement Opportunities:
Because repetitive, yet essential tasks often
fall to the internal DBA, management may wish to
maintain the status-quo by keeping the DBA in place.
But job satisfaction tends to slip for employees
whose day-to-day tasks don’t reflect their greater
competencies. DBAs who aren’t entrusted with new
challenges or the chance to gain new skills will
often seek employment elsewhere. Ditto if promotion
is nowhere in sight.
Training and Software Expenses:
Companies that do deploy their DBAs to
increasingly complex tasks must train them to handle
those new responsibilities. Of course, managing all
DBA in-house necessitates more frequent software
upgrades, which can be quite costly.
The Distraction Factor:
Internal DBAs are generally pulled in many
directions by many different departments. Often, the
DBA is forced to spend a great deal of time putting
figurative band-aids on problems, rather than
proactively preventing them. Unfortunately, the less
time a DBA can spend on monitoring and maintaining
systems, the greater likelihood that problems will
escalate.
|
