DevOps T-SQL Tuesday Roundup

Grant Fritchey puts a bow on the latest T-SQL Tuesday:

Thank you to everyone who participated in T-SQL Tuesday #091 which was on databases and DevOps. As I anticipated, this brought out quite a bit of variety on the posts. This is because DevOps is still… not quite cooked…(?) in many peoples minds. I think with the range of posts we saw here, it’ll be a lot more clear to those who are just getting an introduction to it. Here are the posts (in no particular order) and a few comments on each:

Click through to see all the entrants.

Minecraft And DevOps

Richie Lee has an essay comparing Minecraft to DevOps:

Let me be clear about something: If you don’t have your databases in source control, there’s no point in thinking about anything else. Everything else follows on from this point. Getting your code in source control is the absolute starting point of all deployment pipelines. Some people have very strong views about whether to use git or TFS, but frankly I’m less concerned about the SVN of choice and more concerned about whether all code that is deployed is in source control. But the point is there’s no point in fretting about how to use Octopus Deploy if you haven’t got your code in source control.

The morals of this story are to crawl before you walk, and when you do learn to walk, don’t walk on lava.  I like the extended Minecraft metaphor, which sets this post off from many others of its ilk.

What Is DevOps?

Rob Farley explains the basics of DevOps:

Traditionally, developers would develop code without thinking much about operations. They’d get some new code ready, deploy it somehow, and hope it didn’t break much. And the Operations team would brace themselves for a ton of pain, and start pushing back on change, and be seen as a “BOFH”, and everyone would be happy. I still see these kinds of places, although for the most part, people try to get along.

With DevOps, the idea is that developers work in a way that means that things don’t break.

I know, right.

My tongue-in-cheek-or-maybe-not version of this is, DevOps is when you put developers in the on-call rotation.  This provides motivation to build tools that actually explain what’s going on and write code that plays nicer with others.

The Spirit Of DevOps

Andy Yun explains how he sees DevOps:

In the world of DevOps, an Operations team might utilize a monitoring tool that feeds useful directly back to Developers and Testers. Developers & Testers may cross train, so both learn how to effectively write automated unit tests. Developers & Testers could cross train with Operations, to improve application deployment automation processes.

These examples all share one common theme – teams reaching outside of their traditional skill boundaries, to actively engage, learn, and integrate. This active engagement is what has often been missing from traditional operations.

Andy’s post is a good example of the positive take on DevOps (and the one to which I subscribe).

Ship It

James Anderson compiled the latest T-SQL Tuesday results and shipped it:

I’d like to say a huge thank you to everyone who read or published a post for T-SQL Tuesday #90. I had a great time reading through all the posts and I learnt a lot!

I feel that the real takeaway here is that Continuous Integration and DevOps are not just about putting the right tools in place, it’s all about putting the right working practices in place.

Read on for the wrap-up.

Stored Procedures Are Code

Rob Farley hates hearing that stored procedures don’t need to go into source control:

Hearing this is one of those things that really bugs me.

And it’s not actually about stored procedures, it’s about the mindset that sits there.

I hear this sentiment in environments where there are multiple developers. Where they’re using source control for all their application code. Because, you know, they want to make sure they have a history of changes, and they want to make sure two developers don’t change the same piece of code, maybe they even want to automate builds, all those good things.

But checking out code and needing it to pass all those tests is a pain. So if there’s some logic that can be put in a stored procedure, then that logic can be maintained outside the annoying rigmarole of source control. I guess this is appealing because developers are supposed to be creative types, and should fight against the repression, fight against ‘the man’, fight against control.

When I come across this mindset, I worry a lot.

Read on for Rob’s set of worries, and hie thee to the source control repository.  It really doesn’t matter which source control product you use (ideally, the same one that developers use for their app code), just as long as it’s in source control.

Smoother Deployments

Steve Jones talks about how, at a prior company, he & coworkers simplified their deployment processes and their lives:

The lead developer and I both had little children at the time. Spending 12+ hours at work on Wednesday wasn’t an ideal situation for us, and we decided to get better.

The first thing we did was ensure that all code was tracked in VSS. We had most web code here, but there were always a few files that weren’t captured, so we cleaned that up. I also added database code to VSS with the well known, time tested and proven File | Save, File | Open method of capturing SQL code. This took a few months, and some deployment issues, to get everyone in the habit of modifying code in this manner. I refused to deploy code that wasn’t in VSS, and since our CTO was a former developer, I had support.

The other change was the lead developer and I started building a release branch of code each week. We’d move over the changes that were going to be released to this branch, which simplified our process. We could now see exactly which code was being deployed. This was before git and more modern branching strategies, but we were able to easily copy code from the mainline of development to the release branch as we made changes for this week.

It’s a good read.

Continuous Disintegration

Alex Yates gets on his soapbox about continuous integration:

Everyone does CI wrong!

(OK, perhaps not everyone, but a lot of people.)

Whenever I deliver a conference session about database continuous integration (CI), I like to start by asking a question to the audience. “Who can tell me what continuous integration means?”

I almost always get responses like:

“Automated deployments!”

“Automated builds upon commit!”

Very occasionally someone will impress me with something like:

“Unit tests!” or “Automatically running my unit tests!”

Not bad answers. Have a biscuit. But you are still missing the fundamental point.

Alex makes a number of great points, so check it out.

The DBA Role Isn’t Dead

Robert Davis discusses shipping database changes and the role of the DBA:

I don’t know what percentage of people out there are doing DevOps, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it is most likely some number LESS than MOST of them. I don’t think more than half the companies or people out there that do Ops are doing DevOps. I also believe that DBAs that make really good money aren’t making it because DBAs are rare. They are making it because DBA is a tough job to be really good at and the ones who are really good at it are rare. All DBAs are molded by the environments they work in, but really good DBAs are ones that eventually learn to mold their environments to them.

A normal DBA may say something like, “I do it this way because that is the way it is done here.”

An exceptional DBA says, “We do it that way here because that is the way I have it done.”

Robert makes great points.  I have on my agenda to write a post entitled something like “The Cloud’s Not Going To Steal Our Jobs,” somewhat in the same spirit as this post.  Definitely a must-read.

Baby Steps With Deployments

Riley Major looks at small things you can do to help smooth out deployment processes:

It’s not just about exercising restraint, though. It’s also about taking small additional steps to minimize the impact of new development. If you are making a new stored procedure parameter, can you provide a default so that its omission will make the procedure act as before? If so, you can now deploy that change without affecting any consuming code. If you are changing the name of a column, can you create a computed column with the old name which simply mirrors the original column’s data? All insert- and update-related code would still need to change, but you could save the SELECT statements for the next round.

Ideally, these steps are transitory. Optional parameters can be made mandatory once all of the consuming procedures have been adapted. The legacy-named computed columns should be deleted once all old queries are updated. But recognize that this might not happen. Other priorities come up, and these supposedly temporary constructs can linger.

Click through for additional hints.

Categories

June 2017
MTWTFSS
« May  
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930