System Administrator Says No to Defrag

[techfuzz]

I recently suggested to my boss that we should run defrag on one of our servers because it had over 30% fragmentation on multiple drives. My boss asked our system administrator about running defrag on it. The sys admin's response was that we haven't run defrag on any of our servers before and does not feel comfortable doing it. Unless there is a serious performance issue that it will correct, the sys admin does not see it as something that is needed at this point.

Wow.... just wow!

techfuzz

 

[LS8]

More likely the admin doesn't want users trying to dictate policy on his servers.

 

[techfuzz]

Originally posted by: LS8
More likely the admin doesn't want users trying to dictate policy on his servers.

I'm a web developer/dba--not your typical user. I also worked on the systems side for many years. And they aren't his servers, they belong to our group and he manages them.

techfuzz

 

[LS8]

That may in fact be true, but he was hired to manage the servers, not you. If your bosses wanted you manageing the servers they would have put you in charge of them. You might manage applications that are running on the servers but the hardware is his. That's how IT works.

I agree with you that if a defrag is needed it should be done. Do you have the same boss?

Edit: Sorry it's hard to empathize. I work systems side and have had too many DBAs over the years try to tell me what to do systems side and they almost never know what they are doing. That's why they need us to run things. You seem to be unique that you started systems side and moved over so your knowledge is better than most DBAs I have worked with.

 

[techfuzz]

Originally posted by: LS8
Do you have the same boss?

Yes

EDIT: I'm just astounded by the comment that our sys admin wasn't comfortable running defrag. And what blows my mind is we have to wait for a performance issue to appear before any action is taken.

I'm going to read the news now. Done venting.

techfuzz

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: techfuzz

Originally posted by: LS8
Do you have the same boss?

Yes

EDIT: I'm just astounded by the comment that our sys admin wasn't comfortable running defrag. And what blows my mind is we have to wait for a performance issue to appear before any action is taken.

I'm going to read the news now. Done venting.

techfuzz

Sounds like your hands are tied then. The admin does sound like a turd.

 

[dphantom]

This is a problem in IT at many places. There is a sense of ownership over IT resources - servers in this case. The admin probably didn't like to hear the question from your boss so became very defensive.

A better approach may have been to privately talk to your sys admin over lunch/break whatever and talk about performance and what could be done to get the servers in question working better.

Instead, you went behind the admin's back (at least may be percieved so) hence became dirt in his eyes. So now you have a tough job to get back on his good side.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techfuzz

Originally posted by: LS8
More likely the admin doesn't want users trying to dictate policy on his servers.

I'm a web developer/dba--not your typical user. I also worked on the systems side for many years. And they aren't his servers, they belong to our group and he manages them.

techfuzz

No offense but I find developers some of the worst offenders.

 

[nerp]

Just hop on the server some day and set a task to defrag on reboot. hehehe.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: dphantom
This is a problem in IT at many places. There is a sense of ownership over IT resources - servers in this case.

This really isn't a problem from my point of view. People who were't hired to manage systems and people whose jobs don't depend on the reliability of those systems always think they are entitled to make decisions concerning their operations and like to refer to those systems as "ours". Frankly. they aren't, they belong to that sys admi (or collection of admins). They are a facility for others to work off of, but those people who work off them are not entitled to make management decisions over them.

It doesn't matter what a sys admin is managing. He is being paid to make sure that system is up and functional. His pay check depends on that. If he feels a procedure a DBA wants done might compromise his ability to keep that system up and in turn deliver his a pay check he isn't going to do it.

Quite frankly DBAs don't usually want admins going near their data-bases (unless they have fubared them and need help fixing things, but that is another topic). DBAs have a good reason for this - it's their pay check, and they want things done their way so they know it's right.

Anyway, didn't mean to attack you, I hope it doesn't come across that way.

 

[techfuzz]

Originally posted by: dphantom
This is a problem in IT at many places. There is a sense of ownership over IT resources - servers in this case. The admin probably didn't like to hear the question from your boss so became very defensive.

A better approach may have been to privately talk to your sys admin over lunch/break whatever and talk about performance and what could be done to get the servers in question working better.

That approach has never worked with the sys admin. Unless a manager tells them to do it, it doesn't get done. It's part of the corporate culture for some people where I work. Sad, but true.

Instead, you went behind the admin's back (at least may be percieved so) hence became dirt in his eyes. So now you have a tough job to get back on his good side.

I don't care what he perceives nor do I care what side I'm on. If I really wanted to, I would go ahead and do what needs to be done myself. However, I'm not going to run an end-around and do it because I wouldn't want someone doing that to me. I'm working within the parameters of my position and will continue to do so. Eventually there's going to be a performance problem and when it happens I can say, "I told you so".

And concerning the ownership issue, the CEO at my company has put it ever so eloquently in the past, "Those are my damn servers, not yours".

techfuzz

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techfuzz

Originally posted by: LS8
More likely the admin doesn't want users trying to dictate policy on his servers.

I'm a web developer/dba--not your typical user. I also worked on the systems side for many years. And they aren't his servers, they belong to our group and he manages them.

techfuzz

No offense but I find developers some of the worst offenders.

I was about to say the same thing. Developers are some of the worst, because they think they know what they are doing.

While I think your sysadmin should run defrag during the off hours on a regular basis, its his call because he was hired to manage the servers. If he waits until performance problems being appearing, then its his and his supervisor's concern. Not yours.

 

[funkbass81]

Originally posted by: nerp
Just hop on the server some day and set a task to defrag on reboot. hehehe.

he'd better start working on that resume. if our dba did that behind my back he'd be out on his ass immediatley if not sooner

 

[LS8]

That is what we would refer to as an "RGE". :evil:

 

[Juked07]

I think the OP recognizes that the system admin has the right to make his decision one way or another about the defrag...

He is just surprised that the admin was uncomfortable with something as commonplace as defragging, that's all..

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: LS8
That is what we would refer to as an "RGE". :evil:

RGE??

 

[Nothinman]

I'd tend to agree with the admin because I consider most defrag tools snake oil. Especially for web or database server since websites files are usually small enough to stay cached all of the time and database files are managed by the DB, internal fragmentation and lack of memory will probably be more of an issue than filesystem fragmentation.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I'd tend to agree with the admin because I consider most defrag tools snake oil. Especially for web or database server since websites files are usually small enough to stay cached all of the time and database files are managed by the DB, internal fragmentation and lack of memory will probably be more of an issue than filesystem fragmentation.

I was thinking the same thing, not sure what 'problem' the OP is trying to solve other than he didnt like something saying 30%

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: LS8
That is what we would refer to as an "RGE". :evil:

RGE??

Resume Generating Event.

 

[JDMnAR1]

Did you stop to think that just maybe the reason he doesn't feel comfortable running defrag on a production system that isn't exhibiting any problems based on your post is because he would rather save his most likely limited window of allowable downtime for when there is a real problem?

 

[Brazen]

I, too, agree with the sysadmin.

#1 rule: as a sysadmin, once a system is in production I don't like to do anything that entails a change in configuration or requires logging in to the console. If it requires admin privileges to do, it should have been done before the system went into production. Of course, sometimes there has to be an exception, but it better be VERY important and carefully planned and tested. Even seemingly simple little changes can go haywire on complicated enterprise servers.

Add to that the fact that defrags are, as Nothinman put it, snake oil on modern file systems. Particularly on a database system, if heavily used, might be right back up to 30% in a week or so. And in the meantime you are wasting time having a virtually unusable system during the defrag process for no gain and needless potential risk.

I can say I'm jealous though of the environment your sysadmin works in. If you came to my department manager with even more risky "suggestions" than that, he would just tell you to go ahead and do it (that's if you would even bother asking), which you could since anyone even remotely affiliated with IT (including vendors) know the admin passwords. When I first started here, I would say I spent a good 80% of my time fixing problems caused by such changes by coworkers who think they know what they are doing. Through years of badgering and educating coworkers, I've gotten that down to about 20% of my time.

 

[Markbnj]

I'll weigh in with Nothinman, bsobel, and Brazen. I wouldn't defrag that system if I were the admin, and I honestly wouldn't want the developers in my group worrying about the level of fragmentation on server drives. If there is a performance issue then lay that on the table at a meeting and let the admins decide what to do about it.

 

[sourceninja]

At least you have a sysadmin who knows what he is doing. One of ours recently needed help burning an iso to a cdrom. Somehow he is solaris 9 certified....

I've taken over most of the sys admin responsibility because I have a large background in it, but I enjoy programing much much more. The best part is that now, when I want something to happen, it happens. It was nice to start getting emails about how everything now runs so much smoother and how fast requests are completed.

The downside was when I found that our solaris servers had not been patched in over 3 years. Not apache, php, ssl, dns, smtp, nothing. Not a single patch was ever done. The same held true with our windows servers and desktops. Deployed and ignored. I was even more freaked when I discovered that over half of our production critical servers were not running our backup agent. It seems when our last system admin left, the new one just never got around to it....

My work was, and still is very much cut out for me.

 

[Alienwho]

I'm a sysadmin as well, but our head sysadmin here doesn't even like others looking at the servers.

The only way to deal with that type of person is to get them to think it's their idea. Don't ever say "I think we should defrag". Suggest it in a way that makes it sound like it's his idea. Even if you need to straight up make it up by saying something like "I heard you said something about us needing to defrag the servers, the DBA's and dev's think it's a great idea!"

 

[techfuzz]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I'd tend to agree with the admin because I consider most defrag tools snake oil. Especially for web or database server since websites files are usually small enough to stay cached all of the time and database files are managed by the DB, internal fragmentation and lack of memory will probably be more of an issue than filesystem fragmentation.

I was thinking the same thing, not sure what 'problem' the OP is trying to solve other than he didnt like something saying 30%

I can probably find you dozens of IEEE research papers that dispute your snake oil assertion if you'd like. Reorganizing fragmented files has been shown empirically to increase read speeds of disk heads due to the decrease in the latencies between seeks. Contiguous reads are faster than non-contiguous reads. This is all based on the OS file system files. For some databases, the same may not necessarily hold true because different database software employs different schemes for managing its files on the disk. However, with our Oracle server, defragmenting drives does help with performance and is recommended maintenance. Oracle needs contiguous disk space for its datafiles and fragmentation does cause problems.

As I just mentioned, the server in question is for Oracle. It has the database, application, and middleware on it. There are literally hundreds of thousands of files, same quite large and many very small, for the application and middleware portions. The database itself consists of about 100 different files. The 30% fragmentation was an average of all the various disks on the server. Some disks were as high as ~40%.

One of the reasons I suggested it to my boss was because we have been having some odd problems with the database and I happened the check the fragmentation of the database drives. At this point I don't think the oddities are the result of the fragmentation, but it would be nice to rule it out completely; although it is obvious from the sys admins response that this won't be happening.

techfuzz