Where are the good Senior Level DBA's?

  • Going back to the OP "Where are the good Senior Level DBAs", my experience is there are less people who fit this category than there used to be.

    The industry as a whole has spent the last decade steadily devaluing the role of the DBA. The end result is fewer people see time as a DBA being important to their career, and look to other areas for advancement.

    The rise of large-memory and large-corecount servers, coupled with the impending tidal wave of SSD storage, means that good relational design is not needed for most SME applications. The hardware will give fast enough response almost regardless of underlying design. Add into the mix the fact that Visual Studio makes it harder for application folks to deal with relational storage of data than it is for OO storage, and many organisations see little need for dedicated application DBAs. The loss of application DBAs means one path into being a Senior DBA is drying up.

    Another taditional path into DBA work is from the Windows System Engineer (WSE) side. However, if you look at the total career path, the role of Database Architect is almost always paid less than that of Windows System architect, so the typical WSE is more likely to aim for system architect than move into DBA work.

    Is this an experience seen elsewhere? Is DBA work still seen as a vibrant are to move in to, or are we seeing the DBA role becoming classed as legacy and in long-term decline.

    Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.

    When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara

  • L' Eomot Inversé (10/30/2011)


    Eric M Russell (10/28/2011)


    If someone has experience performance tuning databases or with disaster recovery, then the first clue is their resume. A candidate will typically provide a succinct overivew of previous positions they've held; which includes a list of tools used, roles, and responsibilities. If someone doesn't know what SQL Profiler is, not even enough to mention it on their resume, then they wouldn't even get a call back in my universe.

    Someone with a serious amount of experience can't mention all the tools they've used on a resume. You want both "succinct" and "list of tools used" but they are mutually contradictory. I've never put "SQL Profiler" on my resume, not because I haven't used it extensively but because if I go down to that level of detail I'll end up with a silly number of pages instead of just 2 (which, I can assure you, is the maximum number any sane recruiter pays any attention to).

    On my resume, I have (outside the context of job history) a bulleted list of tools, skills, and roles that I've had experienc with. I've narrowed the list to about 20. Following that is job history, which includes for each position a short paragraph which includes the role and highlights one or two major projects I'd conider noteworthy and relevent to new position I'm applying for. It ends up looking very much like a LinkedIn profile page, and under two pages long. Knowing how to craft a resume is a skill itself, and it's something that has to be tweaked and pruned periodically.

    "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

  • EdVassie (10/31/2011)


    Is this an experience seen elsewhere? Is DBA work still seen as a vibrant are to move in to, or are we seeing the DBA role becoming classed as legacy and in long-term decline.

    I can only go on personal feedback. For years I have had co-workers ask what path is required to become a DBA. So I believe the desire to transition to be a DBA is there from others in the IT field. My other observation is that the demand is there. My email and phone are filled with requests from recruiters that I apply with their clients. The numbers are actually becoming interesting into the $120,000 area, which I have never seen before in my area. (The only reason I havn't jumped is because I like my current company, location (short commute), people, the project, etc.)

    So I would say from my own personal experience that the DBA role is not in decline. Seems more in demand than ever and is creating a premium over other IT positions. That premium will likely encourage more developers to focus on it and try to transition to being a DBA.

    I do think that the DBA role is changing. It is so easy to automate most of the job (just review your emails for errors) that every DBA needs to be a developer on the side.

    Just my opinion. As always, you are welcome to it.

  • Do you mind telling us where your resume is posted? I'd love a few more requests for my services...

  • JamesMorrison (10/31/2011)


    EdVassie (10/31/2011)


    Is this an experience seen elsewhere? Is DBA work still seen as a vibrant are to move in to, or are we seeing the DBA role becoming classed as legacy and in long-term decline.

    I can only go on personal feedback. For years I have had co-workers ask what path is required to become a DBA. So I believe the desire to transition to be a DBA is there from others in the IT field. My other observation is that the demand is there. My email and phone are filled with requests from recruiters that I apply with their clients. The numbers are actually becoming interesting into the $120,000 area, which I have never seen before in my area. (The only reason I havn't jumped is because I like my current company, location (short commute), people, the project, etc.)

    So I would say from my own personal experience that the DBA role is not in decline. Seems more in demand than ever and is creating a premium over other IT positions. That premium will likely encourage more developers to focus on it and try to transition to being a DBA.

    I do think that the DBA role is changing. It is so easy to automate most of the job (just review your emails for errors) that every DBA needs to be a developer on the side.

    Just my opinion. As always, you are welcome to it.

    Then there are those of us who aren't ready to relocate because of family.

    What I keep asking is why do companies insist on butts in chairs for their employees when they do everything they can to harness mobile technologies for their customers. There are highly qualified people that would welcome the opportunity (me for example) to show just what we could do working remotely. Perhaps with occasional travel to the home office when really needed (paid for by the company of course).

  • Ninja's_RGR'us (10/31/2011)


    Do you mind telling us where your resume is posted? I'd love a few more requests for my services...

    I just keep it updated on Dice.com. I make sure I change a line or two every month so that it is refreshed.

    I think that recruiters look at the "last updated" resumes so that they see people that are not stale.

    Without fail, after I just update one line and save it, I see an uptick in emails/phone calls.

    Last week when I did it, I got calls from recruiters, that know me, asking if everything is ok at my current employer.

    They seem to think that just by updating it, I must be seriously looking.

    I am not seriously looking. I just like to stay up to date on the current market salaries for this thing we do.

  • EdVassie (10/31/2011)


    Going back to the OP "Where are the good Senior Level DBAs", my experience is there are less people who fit this category than there used to be.

    The industry as a whole has spent the last decade steadily devaluing the role of the DBA. The end result is fewer people see time as a DBA being important to their career, and look to other areas for advancement.

    The rise of large-memory and large-corecount servers, coupled with the impending tidal wave of SSD storage, means that good relational design is not needed for most SME applications. The hardware will give fast enough response almost regardless of underlying design. Add into the mix the fact that Visual Studio makes it harder for application folks to deal with relational storage of data than it is for OO storage, and many organisations see little need for dedicated application DBAs. The loss of application DBAs means one path into being a Senior DBA is drying up.

    Another taditional path into DBA work is from the Windows System Engineer (WSE) side. However, if you look at the total career path, the role of Database Architect is almost always paid less than that of Windows System architect, so the typical WSE is more likely to aim for system architect than move into DBA work.

    Is this an experience seen elsewhere? Is DBA work still seen as a vibrant are to move in to, or are we seeing the DBA role becoming classed as legacy and in long-term decline.

    I'm not seeing less demand for database administrators. Here in the US, if you're a DBA, then you probably send more time hiding from people with job offers than trying to find one. However, I do believe that the roles and expectations for a DBA are evolving quickly. Obviously a DBA who knows SQL, networking, BI, and architecture can have a much more rewarding and secure career than someone who simply sits in a back room shuffling backup tapes and waiting for something to break.

    As for the remark

    "The rise of large-memory and large-corecount servers, coupled with the impending tidal wave of SSD storage, means that good relational design is not needed for most SME (small and medium enterprise?), applications..."

    , well that just laughable. Small and medium sized orangaizations can't afford the hardware that would theoretically run their poorly designed small and medium sized databases without noticable problems. If the underlying database design isn't important, then chances are the application and business are trivial and not important.

    "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

  • There's definitely demand for senior DBAs. I get several calls per month from recruiters.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • GSquared (10/31/2011)


    There's definitely demand for senior DBAs. I get several calls per month from recruiters.

    I would go so far as to say that there is demand for mostly senior DBAs.

    There is not much demand at all if you have less than 5 years experience.

    None of the companies seem to want to trust their production data to an inexperienced DBA.

    I think the best place to get into the DBA role is at a large company that has a team of DBAs.

    That environment can afford to have a new DBA learn the role.

    They will also typically hire within the company and do a transfer for a developer that wants to focus on becoming a DBA.

    You will notice the type. It is the developers always kissing up to the DBA team. There were two cute girls trying that a few years ago when I was on a team of 20+ DBAs. They had all of these nerds on the team just wrapped around their pinkie fingers.

    As expeceted, when a junior DBA position opened up, the one with the largest cup size (and blonde) got the job as a junior Oracle DBA. It was so transparent that I had to laugh at the situation. She was actually smart and I am sure she is a fine DBA now. But there were certainly more qualified people who also applied.

    A company that has just one DBA is not going to risk it. They will typically seek someone with 5+ years of experience.

  • Eric M Russell (10/31/2011)


    As for the remark

    EdVassie (10/31/2011)


    "The rise of large-memory and large-corecount servers, coupled with the impending tidal wave of SSD storage, means that good relational design is not needed for most SME (small and medium enterprise?), applications..."

    , well that just laughable. Small and medium sized orangaizations can't afford the hardware that would theoretically run their poorly designed small and medium sized databases without noticable problems. If the underlying database design isn't important, then chances are the application and business are trivial and not important.

    I guess I have to disagree with that. For a collection of small databases it has (for a long time now) been a lot more expensive in the short term to do it right than to throw hardware at it. Hiring a competent DBA is a large cost - the difference in three month's pay (compared to a newbie DBA who will spend most of his time reading BoL) is more than enough to increase the server ram by a factor of 8 and double the number of cores while upgrading from RAID 5 with slow (about 7krpm) drives to RAID 10 with fast (15krpm) drives. And if you get a good newbie those first three months or mostly reading will mean he learns enough to be really useful - you will find that the oversized hardware that only just did the job in the early days is adequate, with your now slightly experienced but still pretty junior DBA, to cover the next ten years of growth. Of course this doesn't work for very large databases with massive transaction throughput requirements, but that's far from the normal case.

    Tom

  • L' Eomot Inversé (10/31/2011)


    I guess I have to disagree with that. For a collection of small databases it has (for a long time now) been a lot more expensive in the short term to do it right than to throw hardware at it.

    I'll have to second this hands down. Hardware is cheaper then personell.

    A) Hardware depreciates, thus allowing for tax write offs.

    B) Hardware doesn't call in sick, usually. It also doesn't require medical or vacation pay.

    C) Hardware for a comparable upgrade in usability gives your business an asset which is more valuable on the books when dealing with banks for loans and the like.

    A person:

    A) is more versatile.

    That's really it, if you're going to come down to cost and application.

    Hiring a competent DBA is a large cost - the difference in three month's pay (compared to a newbie DBA who will spend most of his time reading BoL) is more than enough to increase the server ram by a factor of 8 and double the number of cores while upgrading from RAID 5 with slow (about 7krpm) drives to RAID 10 with fast (15krpm) drives.

    Just a quick example off a site, and these are bumped up because of no negotiations.

    http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/15351-15351-3328412-241644-3328422-4142916.html

    Take a look at the 25k server. That's 40 cores, 4 processors, 128GB of RAM.

    Two of them at 50k for your cluster. Medium size business, they're not doing multi-office cross-nation DR here. Just keep it running.

    Now, some storage...

    We'll assume some basic storage arrays, and assume an existing business has a san controller already in place. Not big iron, but something feasible, and they want to do a storage upgrade while they're at it.

    Hanging out with HP a moment: http://h71016.www7.hp.com/ctoBases.asp?oi=E9CED&BEID=19701&SBLID=&ProductLineId=450&FamilyId=2570&LowBaseId=15222&LowPrice=$1,899.00&familyviewgroup=757&viewtype=Matrix#

    12.5k for a 7.5 TB of 25 SAS/SATA drives.

    So, for 65k, I have just made an asset-class investment with depreciation that requires no holiday, sick, vacation, HR, 401k vesting, or any other external costs besides power... which I was already paying on the old door-stoppers I'm pulling out of the rack.

    If I can sit on that upgrade for 2 years, I've saved considerable money + depreciation tax write offs.

    Hardware is a powerful choice available to companies to completely remove the low end of the skill pool if performance is the only consideration. Thankfully, it's not.


    - Craig Farrell

    Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.

    For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
    For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]

    Twitter: @AnyWayDBA

  • There is not much demand at all if you have less than 5 years experience.

    I have to mostly disagree with this statement. I think anyone with more than 2-3 years experience would have no problems finding a pretty good job right now. We have had several DBA positions open for a while now and would gladly accept junior level DBA's as long as they had good fundamentals and a strong desire to learn.

    I think the best place to get into the DBA role is at a large company that has a team of DBAs.

    That environment can afford to have a new DBA learn the role.

    A company that has just one DBA is not going to risk it. They will typically seek someone with 5+ years of experience.

    I do agree that an aspiring DBA or junior level DBA would have a better chance at an organization with multiple DBA's. Our openings would definitely fall into your statement. We are willing to accept less experience if the candidate can show they have a strong passion for learning and the job itself.

  • I do agree that an aspiring DBA or junior level DBA would have a better chance at an organization with multiple DBA's. Our openings would definitely fall into your statement. We are willing to accept less experience if the candidate can show they have a strong passion for learning and the job itself.

    Damn! I fit into that category! Now if I could only convince my wife that a possible move to Michigan would be a good idea...

    :hehe:

  • If all a company is looking for is speed-of-query, then hardware is almost certainly cheaper than a good DBA.

    However, if that's all they're looking for, then they don't know what a DBA is for.

    They should also replace most of their sales personnel with an e-commerce website, replace their accounting personnel with a copy of Quickbooks, replace ... oh heck, now we're looking at replacing the whole company with just a server with a good neural net set up on it. How'd I end up there?

    Obviously, just like all the other people I just replaced in that company, a DBA brings (or at least should) more to the table than just "your queries will run faster most of the time".

    Even in that regard, the most powerful server hardware in the world currently won't deal well with code that deadlocks all over the place. Even just plain old blocking can kill performance. And if the solution to that is NoLock all over the place, the high-power hardware just corrupts data that much faster.

    It's just like replacing your company receptionist and salesforce with an auto-attendant. Yes, it can answer the phone, and it's cheaper than a human being. No, that doesn't necessarily make it a good (or bad) decision.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • L' Eomot Inversé (10/31/2011)


    Eric M Russell (10/31/2011)


    As for the remark

    EdVassie (10/31/2011)


    "The rise of large-memory and large-corecount servers, coupled with the impending tidal wave of SSD storage, means that good relational design is not needed for most SME (small and medium enterprise?), applications..."

    , well that just laughable. Small and medium sized orangaizations can't afford the hardware that would theoretically run their poorly designed small and medium sized databases without noticable problems. If the underlying database design isn't important, then chances are the application and business are trivial and not important.

    I guess I have to disagree with that. For a collection of small databases it has (for a long time now) been a lot more expensive in the short term to do it right than to throw hardware at it. Hiring a competent DBA is a large cost - the difference in three month's pay (compared to a newbie DBA who will spend most of his time reading BoL) is more than enough to increase the server ram by a factor of 8 and double the number of cores while upgrading from RAID 5 with slow (about 7krpm) drives to RAID 10 with fast (15krpm) drives. And if you get a good newbie those first three months or mostly reading will mean he learns enough to be really useful - you will find that the oversized hardware that only just did the job in the early days is adequate, with your now slightly experienced but still pretty junior DBA, to cover the next ten years of growth. Of course this doesn't work for very large databases with massive transaction throughput requirements, but that's far from the normal case.

    The idea that hardware can compensate for poor database design can be applied, in a limited way, to small organizations with low expectations or perhaps some niche applications. However, small sized companies have never been the primary employer for database administrators anyhow.

    It's not an idea that be applied broadly to the DBA profession in general, and it's not becomming more true each day either. Quite the opposite, I keep hearing news stories about organizations in the banking, government, web and other industries who are struggling to keep with their ever growing datasets, and they are pointing the finger of blame at the architecture of their databases.

    "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 187 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply