Re: do I need a DBA for SQL Server?
If you are in the UK then give me a call and we can sort out a support
contract.
Personally, I'd give a couple of your internal guys some training to bring
them up to a support level for SQL Server and then rely on experts on call
if things go wrong.
A full time DBA is probably going to be expensive if they aren't doing
anything else.
The role of a pure DBA within the SQL Server has reduced somewhat, they tend
to do development but a lot do Business Intelligence stuff now as well.
Hope that helps.
--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Brian" <barmand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138807906.362534.91700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> We currently run an Oracle 8i db for Oracle Applications 10.7. We are
> considering moving away from this whole infrastructure to Windows 2003
> Server and SQL Server 2005 with a new ERP system.
>
> Currently, we have an Oracle DBA under contract who performs all of the
> maintenance required, plus does any and all fixes to the db when there
> are problems.
>
> What I have been asked, and couldn't comfortably answer, is do we need
> the same sort of arrangement for SQL Server? We have plenty of Windows
> server experience in house, but only minor SQL Server experience (I can
> set up maintenance jobs, backups, user admin, etc.). If something bad
> happens to the ERP system, and the ERP vendor determines that the
> problem is not with their app but is with the db itself, how do I get
> this resolved quickly? Should I have a contract with a 3rd party to
> cover us should this scenario occur?
>
> Thanks for any and all feedback.
> Regards,
> Brian
>
.
