Lace Up Your Boots

Published Mon, Aug 22 2005 14:41 | William

A friend of mine is working on a RFP for her company and was supposed to use the Verbiage that her predecessor used.  This person used to be the Assistant Manager at a T.G.I Fridays before she got into information technology.  She often referred to herself as an 'architect' and had quite a bit of influence for a while on design decisions.  Design decisions as in desiging tables and objects.  This is her description of Sql Server's BackUp and Recovery functionality (and specifically, Point in Time Restores). The objective here was to describe the difference between Sql Server's back and recovery power as opposed to Access or other systems without Point in Time Restore.  Remember as your reading this, This is the description of Point in Time Restore functionality in general, and Sql Server's in particular.  Then I want you to answer, how big of a Bong would it take before you could actually write something like this?  [You see, I have a theory that idiocy and ignorance alone can't make a really big mess. They can make a mess, but REAL F-ups are always caused by someone who really thinks they are smart and too frigging arrogant to admit it when they are in over their head.  Stupid people will accidentally get a few things right, but it takes a real arrogant sh1thead to make real messes.  And unfortunately, Software and IT has a disproportionate share of those types of people].  And I swear  - this is copied directly from a RFP.  Not a word was changed and you have the entire section here.

Point in Time Recovery:

“Microsoft SQL Server utilizes the transactional method of data recovery. Transaction recovery is data recovery at the level of specific transactions. In this context, a transaction is defined as a set of related operations that, when grouped together, define a logical unit within an application. Traditional recovery techniques imply recovery of portions of a database (such as a tablespace or an index). Transaction recovery, on the other hand, enables recovery based on criteria that you define. The important point is that a transaction is defined from the user's point of view, as opposed to a transaction (or unit of recovery) as defined to the database. Such activity is handled within SQL server and can be examined using the standard monitoring tools (such as Performance Monitor) that come with the product, or can be enhanced even more with a variety of third-party monitoring tools.”

Filed under:

Comments

# William said on August 22, 2005 2:54 PM:

See, this is why access is so much better than sql server! It has better support for recovery because I can just copy the file to several places on my local hard drive as a sort of "backup". I have no idea why Sql Server was even neccessary when Access was such a great product! ;)

(for those who googled for this answer, PLEASE look for the subtle traces of sarcasm that I cleverly disguised in the above statements before addressing it seriously).

# William said on August 22, 2005 3:11 PM:

Wow! All I can say is she never should have quit her day job.

As long as you are ranting help a fellow out and rant about this as well:
http://www.burnmytime.com/v2/index.php?action=view&id=241

# William said on August 23, 2005 10:48 AM:

WTF?!? Nice way to explain something that is relatively simple and make it almost IMPOSSIBLE to understand.

# William said on August 23, 2005 2:03 PM:

I just asked for her write up on N-Tier Architecture - I can't friggin wait to read that.

Search

This Blog

Tags

Community

Archives

News

My other sites

Cool Stuff

Book Stuff

Security

ORM

Data Access

Funny Stuff

Compact Framework Stuff

Web Casts

My KnowledgeBase Articles

My MVP Profile

Design Patterns

Performance

Debugging

Remoting

My Fellow Authors

My Books

LINQ

Misc

Speech

Syndication

Email Notifications