Is your opinion valued at work?

Bl8ckr0uter

We have a smallish IT department (2 admins, 4 developers and the CITO). My title is Network Security Admin but it should be called JR Admin since I have been treated as such. Lately when situations comes up it seems like my opinion is completely ignored no matter how valid or how much research I have done to build my case. The latest things involved us moving to SQL Server 2k5 or 2k8 and Saving session state with sql server for web apps. Since only the "SR" network admin can build servers I requested a 2008 box with 2008 sql server for a product that I plan to roll out shortly. Well of course he builds a 2003 with SQL 2k5 saying there was "no reason" to go with something the developers (and himself) aren't "comfortable" with. As I explained to him some of the security improvements in 2k8 vs 2k5 he basically shrugged them off saying "we can do all of that in 2k5" (which isn't actually true). I said we should move our SQL databases to 2k8 instead of 2k5 also because of mainstream support ending for 2k5 soon as well as thinking about the length that these databases will be in place. My thought process is that if this thing is in place for another 5 years, we need to have best of breed now so it won't be totally useless 5 years from now. We have a bunch for Server 2000 boxes still around that he wants to upgrade to 2k3. I am saying lets go for 2k8, just in case these stick around for another 11 years or so.

As most of you know http is sessionless. There are ways to get around this via code. One of them is saving the session to an external process or database. I suggested that we do this since we were having problems with the our website which causes our worker process to reset (and people getting kicked out of our website). Well basically for 3 weeks I was saying this and 3 weeks I have either been ignored, delayed or just shrugged off by the developers, the other admin (at one point) and the CITO. Maybe it is because I am the youngest person in the company or the one who is the newest but it seems that my opinion isn't valued at all. Is this normal for people who are coming into a "JR" admin job or should is this a sign? Me personally I'm taking this as a sign but I want to see what some other people thought. I know the job market is tough right now but to me it seems foolish to stick around at a place where my opinion is worth less than the secretary's. Plus I don't have anything lined up at the moment. I am thinking about starting to look after march (when I sit the LPIC-1 and SSCP) since I can try to focus on that for a moment instead of certs.

Mojo_666

It is hard to gauge without knowing how you come across to these guys, also there is more to IT than doing what is right or what is best and sometime people do not want to have to explain themselves to the new guy. In regards to 2k3 and SQL05 maybe they had the licenses already (or doubled up on licenses) so it was a no brainer on not spending money, they are also tried and tested proucts that people are comfortable with, get used to people sitting in the comfort zone because most people do. Yes it is nice to go with the new stuff but the reality is the benefits do not often justify the cost or change.

Bl8ckr0uter

Mojo_666 wrote: »

It is hard to gauge without knowing how you come across to these guys, also there is more to IT than doing what is right or what is best and sometime people do not want to have to explain themselves to the new guy. In regards to 2k3 and SQL05 maybe they had the licenses already (or doubled up on licenses) so it was a no brainer on not spending money, they are also tried and tested proucts that people are comfortable with, get used to people sitting in the comfort zone because most people do. Yes it is nice to go with the new stuff but the reality is the benefits do not often justify the cost or change.

The thing is that we have unlimited Windows and SQL server (versions and number) licenses in our virtual environment. I think it is called windows datacenter package or something. So basically it would come down to opinions. We are using Exchange 2k7 and the other guy wants 2k10 because of a few features. He doesn't really have to persuade anyone though since the boss will pretty much do what he wants.

Edit: I have been there 7 months. Don't you think that they would take the time to explain things to me at this point?

Mojo_666

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

The thing is that we have unlimited Windows and SQL server licenses in our virtual environment. So basically it would come down to opinions. We are using Exchange 2k7 and the other guy wants 2k10 because of a few features. He doesn't really have to persuade anyone though since the boss will pretty much do what he wants.

Maybe it is just a time serverd thing? how long have you been at this place? maybe you are not regarded as one of the team yet.

Bl8ckr0uter

Mojo_666 wrote: »

Maybe it is just a time serverd thing? how long have you been at this place? maybe you are not regarded as one of the team yet.

7 months. But I don't know maybe that isn't long enough.

Mojo_666

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

7 months. But I don't know maybe that isn't long enough.

Wow 7 months is a long time, do you not get on very well with these people?

erpadmin

Keep in mind too that applications have to be certified to run in a particular environment (e.g. Windows 2K8 R2 and SQL Server 2K8 R2). If it's not certified by an application, that means we won't get support by that application vendor, so while MS might have it's own lifecycle schedule, our concern is more with application vendor support. Sometimes, it takes months, for that application to get certified. Homework on your part has to be done in that regard. That's why you still see 2K3 boxes.

You can't just upgrade to the latest and greatest because it's there. Stuff has to be tested in a dev environment (and that's not an environment that you set up in a corner...you have to involve users), and that could take weeks if not months (usually weeks). Then you have to migrate to Production, and that has to be planned...you would never do an in-place upgrade (that would be dumb) and a plan would have to be inplace in case something goes to heck.

You can't just say use such and such because it's newer. You have to have a well documented plan and homework on your part has to be done, in part, so that it doesn't look like you're talking out of your behind.

Bl8ckr0uter

Mojo_666 wrote: »

Wow 7 months is a long time, do you not get on very well with these people?

... I don't really know

erpadmin wrote: »

Keep in mind too that applications have to be certified to run in a particular environment (e.g. Windows 2K8 R2 and SQL Server 2K8 R2). If it's not certified by an application, that means we won't get support by that application vendor, so while MS might have it's own lifecycle schedule, our concern is more with application vendor support. Sometimes, it takes months, for that application to get certified. Homework on your part has to be done in that regard. That's why you still see 2K3 boxes.

You can't just upgrade to the latest and greatest because it's there. Stuff has to be tested in a dev environment (and that's not an environment that you set up in a corner...you have to involve users), and that could take weeks if not months (usually weeks). Then you have to migrate to Production, and that has to be planned...you would never do an in-place upgrade (that would be dumb) and a plan would have to be inplace in case something goes to heck.

You can't just say use such and such because it's newer. You have to have a well documented plan and homework on your part has to be done, in part, so that it doesn't look like you're talking out of your behind.

I agree with this for the most part. For our main application while it is not certified on 2k8 the vendor says that it shouldn't be a problem (we would need to test and retest anyway if we go with 2k5). For the most part though, the sql servers I mentioned just ran databases for various things that would be supported on 2k8 without an issue. Also the TDE feature would help with hipaa compliance. I understand that our main application would need to be tested throughly but why not move our stuff that we know will work on 2k8 to 2k8 if not for anything a test of the new platform. The servers that I requested were brand new for a brand new product that totally works on 2k8 but he just chose to do what he wanted to do .

Mojo_666

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

... I don't really know

I hate to say it but I suspect this might be your issue here, at the end of the day you need to get on well and have a good working relationship with your co workers, if that isn't the case your going to have a hard time whether you are right or not.

erpadmin

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

I understand that our main application would need to be tested throughly but why not move our stuff that we know will work on 2k8 to 2k8 if not for anything a test of the new platform. The servers that I requested were brand new for a brand new product that totally works on 2k8 but he just chose to do what he wanted to do .

How do you know they will work on 2k8? Because Bill Gates said so? LOL.

My point wasn't that it would or wouldn't work...stuff still has to be tested and planned. Windows 2K8 AND SQL Server 2K8 require a lot of memory too....8GB and 16GB on DB servers aren't going to cut it anymore. 32GB is more or less the new minimum on DB boxes. The memory alone is not cheap, let alone the boxes you will have to procure (we use HP Proliants, but Dell Poweredges are also similar in price).

Also you mentioned earlier that you have 2000 Server boxes that are being upgraded to 2k3...there's a reason for that. 2008 boxes are going to go straight to R2, and that's only going to be on 64-bit boxes, which means no more 32-bit support. (2008 non R2 will be treated as if it never even happened...lmao)

Part of the reason why you might be getting shutdown is most likely because you haven't made a real business case for upgrading (just that it's newer, MS mainstream support will end, but you'll fall back on extended support anyway, so there that argument right there). I also haven't heard on what you wanted to do with the existing hardware that has to be replaced by such that are 64-bit boxes with adequate memory.

If you want to be taken seriously (and I believe you do), you have to start thinking more about cost and less on tech. Find a nice, healthy balance between the two.

Bl8ckr0uter

Mojo_666 wrote: »

I hate to say it but I suspect this might be your issue here, at the end of the day you need to get on well and have a good working relationship with your co workers, if that isn't the case your going to have a hard time whether you are right or not.

Like when I say I don't know it isn't that we don't get along I but we don't go out for drinks on Fridays or anything.

Bl8ckr0uter

erpadmin wrote: »

How do you know they will work on 2k8? Because Bill Gates said so? LOL.

Which apps? Our main app will work because the vendor told me so. The other apps I mentioned will work because the datasheets told me so. It isn't the apps that I'm worried about though. It is the databases. The apps (I mention these collectively) will work but the APP is a big maybe. Certain other users of the APP have it working but the vendor isn't saying it or not. The vendor says that people have made it work (without much work) and that they will work with us.

erpadmin wrote: »

My point wasn't that it would or wouldn't work...stuff still has to be tested and planned. Windows 2K8 AND SQL Server 2K8 require a lot of memory too....8GB and 16GB on DB servers aren't going to cut it anymore. 32GB is more or less the new minimum on DB boxes. The memory alone is not cheap, let alone the boxes you will have to procure (we use HP Proliants, but Dell Poweredges are also similar in price).

When I say move to I mean test with it. If we are going to test with 2k5 we should just test with 2k8. I know that we will have to test anyway but what I am trying to change is the platform we use to test.

erpadmin wrote: »

Also you mentioned earlier that you have 2000 Server boxes that are being upgraded to 2k3...there's a reason for that. 2008 boxes are going to go straight to R2, and that's only going to be on 64-bit boxes, which means no more 32-bit support. (2008 non R2 will be treated as if it never even happened...lmao)

This is a moot point lol. We are upgrading the boxes to 2k3 64bit anyway lol. Those 2000 server are Terminal Servers.

erpadmin wrote: »

Part of the reason why you might be getting shutdown is most likely because you haven't made a real business case for upgrading (just that it's newer, MS mainstream support will end, but you'll fall back on extended support anyway, so there that argument right there). I also haven't heard on what you wanted to do with the existing hardware that has to be replaced by such that are 64-bit boxes with adequate memory.

All of these boxes are Virtual. Cost is terms of hardware is somewhat of a non issue. Most of our boxes are virtual so we don't have to worry about P2V or anything like that. Our current virtual boxes were all physical at one point so there is some legacy stuff that shows up (I can't really go into it) but basically one of them is the beep service.

Since we have plans to upgrade the SAN and network gear anyway we shouldn't have any issues with that. Now I will say that our ESX boxes will need more ram but again they will need that anyway.

erpadmin wrote: »

If you want to be taken seriously (and I believe you do), you have to start thinking more about cost and less on tech. Find a nice, healthy balance between the two.

HiPAA compliance (SQL Server 2k
Improved performance (SQL Server 2k8, Server 2k
Improved Security (SQL Server 2k8, Server 2k
No cost either way (We already have the software)
Future proofing (This stuff is likely to stay in place for 8 years+)


I don't know what else I can say as far as business cases. I don't really know how to build one other than the stuff I said lol. I just don't see why we wouldn't given the things I have said and the fact that we already own the Server OS and SQL server version.

Now one thing I haven't checked into is backup exec. It works on 2k8 but I haven't checked into Sql 2k8 R2. I am almost 100% positive that it does work.

erpadmin

Well, I can tell you this, and I won't be the only one who will tell you this...I have no doubt that others will say the same:

You can't always take vendors at their words (whether they are as big as Oracle or smallfries [ESPECIALLY smallfries, because they will lie the minute they open their mouth.] With them, I usually want to talk to other customers that have made their apps works with a proposed upgraded configuration. Within this past month, for example, we just talked to a customer that's a flagship school in their state about the address verification system that we use against our ERP that just went through a technical upgrade we're currently going through. They gave us a couple of things to do get our stuff to work. So far no issues, but this particular vendor would have preferred we spend X amount of dollars to upgrade to their certified software. Our management deemed the money was not there so we had to make this work, but we needed to still get their support if something went wrong.

The only entities I know that deal with HIPPA would be hospitals, clinics, or something medical, or schools. You can deal with HIPPA regulations with SQL Server 2000, let alone SQL Server 2008. I have to document who has access to full level production databases at the most administrative level (so far, it's just myself and my own old-timer counterpart, though our network administration team "technically" can give themselves that access because they are enterprise level admins).

You really have two choices in your given scenario though...

1) Bide your time and know when to pick your battles and how and where to strike.

2) Just go along with the program and when the time is right for you to move on, do so.

In small shops, especially when you got a guy above you (in terms of seniority, status, etc.) it's very difficult to try to usurp him. He will do his best to shut you down and will not even think twice about it. Someone like that, you want to give the appearance that you want to work with him, not against him. Especially if he's buddy-buddy with the boss.

Bl8ckr0uter

erpadmin wrote: »

The only entities I know that deal with HIPPA would be hospitals, clinics, or something medical, or schools. You can deal with HIPPA regulations with SQL Server 2000, let alone SQL Server 2008. I have to document who has access to full level production databases at the most administrative level (so far, it's just myself and my own old-timer counterpart, though our network administration team "technically" can give themselves that access because they are enterprise level admins).

And health insurance shops....

How do you deal with data at rest encryption with SQL 2000 without a 3rd party tool?

erpadmin wrote: »

You really have two choices in your given scenario though...


1) Bide your time and know when to pick your battles and how and where to strike.

2) Just go along with the program and when the time is right for you to move on, do so.

In small shops, especially when you got a guy above you (in terms of seniority, status, etc.) it's very difficult to try to usurp him. He will do his best to shut you down and will not even think twice about it. Someone like that, you want to give the appearance that you want to work with him, not against him. Especially if he's buddy-buddy with the boss.

You're probably right . I did get a small victory of Server 2008 R2 for our new IIS stuff

erpadmin

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

And health insurance shops....

How do you deal with data at rest encryption with SQL 2000 without a 3rd party tool?



You're probably right . I did get a small victory of Server 2008 R2 for our new IIS stuff

We haven't. Our database is not currently encrypted, but we've been telling our auditors that within a few months, that will be taken cared of 2K5 (the next application upgrade, as opposed to the Tools upgrade we're doing, will involve upgrading the DB to 2K8 as it is now certified).


Edit: The part of the database that deals with health records does have an encryption mechanism built into it that was provided by Oracle (PeopleSoft). It's similar to the process that encrypts our credit card information for payments, and that data and functions get audited hardcore. In order for me, to have access to credit cards, for example, I have to give myself that access. Yes, I can turn off the auditing and what not at will, but that crap is something I want no part of. LOL. I make sure only the people who need it have access to that. Anyone that's stupid enough to get silly deserves the Federal and State time they will get. LOL.

zerglings

erpadmin wrote: »

You can't always take vendors at their words (whether they are as big as Oracle or smallfries [ESPECIALLY smallfries, because they will lie the minute they open their mouth.]

I gotta agree. Trust nobody. Everybody lies.

wastedtime

zerglings wrote: »

I gotta agree. Trust nobody. Everybody lies.

I don't know about that but trusting a vendor pushing there software is about the same as trusting a used car salesman to sell you a good car.

joshmadakor

wastedtime wrote: »

I don't know about that but trusting a vendor pushing there software is about the same as trusting a used car salesman to sell you a good car.

Lol.

Anyway, @26 years old I'm the youngest person on my team also, but I feel like my opinion is usually valued when I want it to be (if that makes sense). It could just be the personalities of people that I work with though.

Another thing I noticed is that the longer people are at their job, the more lazy and complacent they become. i.e. not wanting to deal with change and learn new things. It sounds like your coworkers are possibly just lazy.

zerglings

wastedtime wrote: »

I don't know about that but trusting a vendor pushing there software is about the same as trusting a used car salesman to sell you a good car.

I watch too much House. c",)

cablegod

Yes, because it's the only one that really matters when it boils down to it. I report directly to the CFO and all IT decisions are left to me, and me alone. I decide on what we need after much research & testing. He writes the check(s) for it. I implement & support it. Very simple, and it works great for us. Simple is good.

joshmadakor

cablegod wrote: »

Yes, because it's the only one that really matters when it boils down to it. I report directly to the CFO and all IT decisions are left to me, and me alone. I decide on what we need after much research & testing. He writes the check(s) for it. I implement & support it. Very simple, and it works great for us. Simple is good.

Lol that doesn't count for this thread because you're already the king

jk of course, that's pretty badass.

SteveLord

I pretty much decide. Anything substantial I get the financial manager's blessing. (I am always on her good side anyway.) Anything even more than that, I get hers and the director's blessing.

Bl8ckr0uter

Interesting guys. I guess maybe I just need to take the low road for now. I will try to redo my business justification but we will see. Who knows. Maybe my boss might change her mind.