RE: Software vendor using additional schemas for testing!

From: Goulet, Dick <DGoulet_at_vicr.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:00:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4001DEAF7DF9BD498B58B45051FBEA6506D9A3@25exch1.vicorpower.vicr.com>

Peter,

Thanks for the reformat I was having problems reading the original = message (Outlook, yuck).

Lisa,

What I believe you need to do is get damanagement to quantify what it = would cost them when the production schema gets trashed. With all of = that data running around in one instance on one computer that will = happen, just a matter of time before someone logs onto the wrong schema. = I'm also guessing that the 3rd party vendor did a "grant all on all to = public" and/or passed out the production password like candy, which is = something that Sarbanes-Oaxley will NOT look nicely on. Some one may = well get their hand slapped pretty hard since this is financials we're = talking about. You also have the problem that activity in one schema = directly impacts the production schema. Response time can get VERY = slow, competition for rollback space is also a problem, bet they left = only one rollback segment laying around in the system tablespace. Did = they configure a temp space or is that in system as well?? Running = system into the ground like that can cause the database to cease = functioning with some really odd errors. What they should have is = production dedicated on one server with a second server doing all of = this other stuff. If their absolutely bound to retaining one server due = to Oracle licensing issues, recommend a change in OS to Linux. For one = it's cheaper, two it does not need as beefy a piece of hardware, and = three you can more easily run multiple instances thereon so that at = least production & the other stuff can be on separate instances which = adds a nice layer of isolation from data corruption.

Dick Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA
Oracle Certified 8i DBA

-----Original Message-----
From: Robson, Peter [mailto:pgro_at_bgs.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:21 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Software vendor using additional schemas for testing!

Management will not understand technical arguements in favour of one = strate=3D
gy or another.

You have to hit them with the issue of data quality, and integrity. The = sys=3D
tem you describe seems to put these factors into question. Bring it down = to=3D
money - a simplistic approach most management do understand. Consider = the =3D
cost to the organisation of the database going pear-shaped. That's your = bas=3D
e line. Then try and quantify the successive costs of each step towards = you=3D
r perceived best system, with the financial costs of not doing that. = Place =3D
a qualitative assessment of the vulnerablitiy of your present system to = col=3D
lapse (a % figure has impact). Ultimately, you have to make a = cost-assessme=3D
nt of doing / not doing something.=3D20

Whatever else, management will be very aware that if they ignore your = advic=3D
e, and things go wrong, there will be a written document from yourself = havi=3D
ng warned of the situation, which would leave them very exposed. That = can c=3D
oncentrate minds.

Ho Hum - it all seems incredibly elementary, but its not the first time = I h=3D
ave encountered this sort of ostrich-like attitude to database...

peter
edinburgh

> ------------------
> Original message, formatting fixed
> -------------------

>=3D20

> OK guys, need some help and ammunition here, so a bit of background
> first. I'm in my 3rd week in a new job where they are have a=3D20
> 3rd party
> financials app sitting on 8.1.7 on win2k. Software vendor=3D20
> is coming in
> today to make some changes.

>=3D20

> They've never had any in-house DBA skills and have relied=3D20
> solely on 3rd
> parties. No Oracle support contract (I'm working on getting this
> changed!). No DBA contract with 3rd party, only chargeable,=3D20
> ad-hoc work.

>=3D20

> So, they've talked about getting the data in the test/dev databases
> refreshed, far as I can see they only have one database. =3D20
> Turns out they
> have one database with three separate schemas. To refresh data, 3rd
> party has done export/import between the schemas. I've tried=3D20
> explaining
> that this is not ideal and that=3D3D20
> really they need a separate test system, but they don't understand.
> Absolutely no database knowledge in here, and it would seem that even
> the software vendor is lacking in this department. (Just to=3D20
> demonstrate,
> 3 redo log groups, 1 member per group size 1M, all sat in=3D20
> same location,
> 2 copies of controlfile, in same location - get the drift??)

>=3D20

> The work the software vendor is coming in to do is create 6=3D20
> new schemas
> as a way of providing 6 different=3D3D20
> 'staging areas' where copies of the live data can be kept at different
> points in time to help through year end. Once year end is=3D20
> completed they
> think they can use these 'staging areas' for testing enhancements.

>=3D20

> I can't look on Metalink, as no CSI number. I'm about to look at OTN
> and go RTFM's, which I only got today.

>=3D20

> What I would like, and quickly is some strong arguments as to why it
> should not be done this way and alternatives to suggest. I've already
> mentioned creating a dedicated test database. I've so far managed to
> hold off on the software vendor beginning work, but I now need to
> justify this to my manager and to the software vendor.=3D3D20

>=3D20

> TIA

>=3D20

> Lisa.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
> put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
> --
> Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
> FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>=3D20

This e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If this message was not addressed to you, you have received it in error and any copying, distribution or other use of any part of it is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the British Geological Survey. The security of e-mail communication cannot be guaranteed and the BGS accepts no liability for claims arising as a result of the use of this medium to transmit messages from or to the

BGS. .                            http://www.bgs.ac.uk
*********************************************************************

----------------------------------------------------------------

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to:  oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thu May 13 2004 - 08:58:04 CDT