Database Administration Survey

Hi,

We are a systems research group at the Computer Science department
at
Rutgers University, and are conducting a survey to understand details
about network, systems and database administration. We hope that this
information would help us recreate a realistic environment to help
research in 'systems management'.

We request network, systems, and database administrators to take this
survey. As an incentive, all surveys completed in their entirety will
be
entered into a drawing of a number of $50 gift certificates (from
Amazon.com).

We hope you have a few minutes to take the survey which is located at:

http://vivo.cs.rutgers.edu/administration_survey.html

Research in our group:
The goal of our research is to improve the overall availability and
maintainability of services. Since administrators form an integral part
of these services, a key aspect of this work is to build environments
and tools that ease the task of service administration. In particular,
environments which would help administrators know how their actions
might impact the real service (before performing them for real), we
believe would be useful in preventing inadvertent actions. This survey
tries to understand the existing environments, what administrators do
currently to test the 'validity' of their actions, and the difficulties
they face in doing so. The two specific systems we are looking at are
networks and databases, as we believe these are important components of
many services.

If you have any questions regarding this survey or our work, feel free
to email us:
Fabio Oliveira (fabiool at cs || rutgers || edu), or
Kiran Nagaraja (knagaraj at cs || rutgers || edu)

Thanks for your time,

Fabio Oliveira
PhD student, Vivo Research Group (http://vivo.cs.rutgers.edu)
Rutgers UniversityTo anyone who is wondering the survey is not very long and none of the
questions were dollar related, which was my first suspicion.

In my opinion the survey suffers from the flaw of allowing you to
identify several databases are in use in your shop, but does not allow
associating the answers/problems identified to any one database
product.

HTH -- Mark D Powell --|||"Mark D Powell" <Mark.Powell@.eds.com> wrote in message
news:1106753026.980765.309700@.z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> To anyone who is wondering the survey is not very long and none of the
> questions were dollar related, which was my first suspicion.
> In my opinion the survey suffers from the flaw of allowing you to
> identify several databases are in use in your shop, but does not allow
> associating the answers/problems identified to any one database
> product.
> HTH -- Mark D Powell --

One of many flaws. Another is the same as with any of these surveys- it is
designed to support the solution under consideration.|||I did my part and participated.. Wondering what the results is...! Can
the creater update us on your statistics out of this survey???|||"QueryBuilder" <pg.242w@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106769002.075423.231530@.c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> I did my part and participated.. Wondering what the results is...! Can
> the creater update us on your statistics out of this survey???

Why are you asking me? Anyway, the answer was on the web site. If you left
your email address, you will get a copy of the results.

Data warehouse or data mart

Hi,
I'm working on a project at the moment where have an existing warehouse, and
need to bring in data from new source systems, which are from a similar (but
not quite the same) part of the business. These two parts of the business
merged recently, and they want to have a consolidated view of the data, as
well as replace some existing (Excel and Access based) reporting.
We are coming to the end of the analysis and design phase, and I want to get
some opinions that the approach I'm taking is valid.
I have tried to bring everything into the one database. I've added some new
fact tables for new source systems, as the original and new source systems
don't quite work the same. I've also tried to conform the dimensions as far
as possible, so that the data will aggregate consistently for the management
reporting.
This seems to fit pretty well, and I haven't had to alter the current data
model very much.
My question is basically: Is this the right way to go, or am I better off
breaking the warehouse into separate data marts?
A lot of the reporting will only apply to each part of the business, but
there will be some management reporting that wants a consolidated view of the
new merged business.
Any comments will be appreciated.
Thanks.
Hi,
Based on my scope, there is no necessary to break them into seperate data
marts for this situation because they have similar model and need to be
merged in the same analysis report. You may consider to create different
cube and you could at least share some common dimensions such as
time/location etc.
Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
>Thread-Topic: Data warehouse or data mart
>thread-index: AcXSOg1GLZ3yTwgwTGqbRewN1uy9bQ==
>X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 203.54.233.209
>From: "=?Utf-8?B?V3JlY2s=?=" <Wreck@.community.nospam>
>Subject: Data warehouse or data mart
>Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:12:02 -0700
>Lines: 31
>Message-ID: <EA2C0FDE-2A52-44DE-88F9-5BA83B6278BF@.microsoft.com>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>charset="Utf-8"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
>Importance: normal
>Priority: normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.datawarehouse
>NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
>Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.datawarehouse:2317
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.datawarehouse
>Hi,
>I'm working on a project at the moment where have an existing warehouse,
and
>need to bring in data from new source systems, which are from a similar
(but
>not quite the same) part of the business. These two parts of the business
>merged recently, and they want to have a consolidated view of the data, as
>well as replace some existing (Excel and Access based) reporting.
>We are coming to the end of the analysis and design phase, and I want to
get
>some opinions that the approach I'm taking is valid.
>I have tried to bring everything into the one database. I've added some
new
>fact tables for new source systems, as the original and new source systems
>don't quite work the same. I've also tried to conform the dimensions as
far
>as possible, so that the data will aggregate consistently for the
management
>reporting.
>This seems to fit pretty well, and I haven't had to alter the current data
>model very much.
>My question is basically: Is this the right way to go, or am I better off
>breaking the warehouse into separate data marts?
>A lot of the reporting will only apply to each part of the business, but
>there will be some management reporting that wants a consolidated view of
the
>new merged business.
>Any comments will be appreciated.
>Thanks.
>
|||Hi Peter,
That's pretty much the approach I'm taking. The new source systems will have
their own fact tables, with conformed measures, joining to conformed
dimensions.
I'll build separate cubes for the fact tables, and put the old and new cubes
in a single virtual cube, joined on the common dimensions.
Thanks,
Wreck.
"Peter Yang [MSFT]" wrote:

> Hi,
> Based on my scope, there is no necessary to break them into seperate data
> marts for this situation because they have similar model and need to be
> merged in the same analysis report. You may consider to create different
> cube and you could at least share some common dimensions such as
> time/location etc.
> Regards,
> Peter Yang
> MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
> Microsoft Online Partner Support
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> ================================================== ===
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> --
> and
> (but
> get
> new
> far
> management
> the
>

Data warehouse or data mart

Hi,
I'm working on a project at the moment where have an existing warehouse, and
need to bring in data from new source systems, which are from a similar (but
not quite the same) part of the business. These two parts of the business
merged recently, and they want to have a consolidated view of the data, as
well as replace some existing (Excel and Access based) reporting.
We are coming to the end of the analysis and design phase, and I want to get
some opinions that the approach I'm taking is valid.
I have tried to bring everything into the one database. I've added some new
fact tables for new source systems, as the original and new source systems
don't quite work the same. I've also tried to conform the dimensions as far
as possible, so that the data will aggregate consistently for the management
reporting.
This seems to fit pretty well, and I haven't had to alter the current data
model very much.
My question is basically: Is this the right way to go, or am I better off
breaking the warehouse into separate data marts?
A lot of the reporting will only apply to each part of the business, but
there will be some management reporting that wants a consolidated view of th
e
new merged business.
Any comments will be appreciated.
Thanks.Hi,
Based on my scope, there is no necessary to break them into seperate data
marts for this situation because they have similar model and need to be
merged in the same analysis report. You may consider to create different
cube and you could at least share some common dimensions such as
time/location etc.
Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
>Thread-Topic: Data warehouse or data mart
>thread-index: AcXSOg1GLZ3yTwgwTGqbRewN1uy9bQ==
>X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 203.54.233.209
>From: "examnotes" <Wreck@.community.nospam>
>Subject: Data warehouse or data mart
>Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:12:02 -0700
>Lines: 31
>Message-ID: <EA2C0FDE-2A52-44DE-88F9-5BA83B6278BF@.microsoft.com>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Utf-8"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
>Importance: normal
>Priority: normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.datawarehouse
>NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
>Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.datawarehouse:2317
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.datawarehouse
>Hi,
>I'm working on a project at the moment where have an existing warehouse,
and
>need to bring in data from new source systems, which are from a similar
(but
>not quite the same) part of the business. These two parts of the business
>merged recently, and they want to have a consolidated view of the data, as
>well as replace some existing (Excel and Access based) reporting.
>We are coming to the end of the analysis and design phase, and I want to
get
>some opinions that the approach I'm taking is valid.
>I have tried to bring everything into the one database. I've added some
new
>fact tables for new source systems, as the original and new source systems
>don't quite work the same. I've also tried to conform the dimensions as
far
>as possible, so that the data will aggregate consistently for the
management
>reporting.
>This seems to fit pretty well, and I haven't had to alter the current data
>model very much.
>My question is basically: Is this the right way to go, or am I better off
>breaking the warehouse into separate data marts?
>A lot of the reporting will only apply to each part of the business, but
>there will be some management reporting that wants a consolidated view of
the
>new merged business.
>Any comments will be appreciated.
>Thanks.
>|||Hi Peter,
That's pretty much the approach I'm taking. The new source systems will have
their own fact tables, with conformed measures, joining to conformed
dimensions.
I'll build separate cubes for the fact tables, and put the old and new cubes
in a single virtual cube, joined on the common dimensions.
Thanks,
Wreck.
"Peter Yang [MSFT]" wrote:

> Hi,
> Based on my scope, there is no necessary to break them into seperate data
> marts for this situation because they have similar model and need to be
> merged in the same analysis report. You may consider to create different
> cube and you could at least share some common dimensions such as
> time/location etc.
> Regards,
> Peter Yang
> MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
> Microsoft Online Partner Support
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> ========================================
=============
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
>
> --
> and
> (but
> get
> new
> far
> management
> the
>