Topics of Systems Administration
-
Time to start calling ourselves Full Stack Administrators
-
@IRJ said in Topics of Systems Administration:
I have never seen a SA making $400k that never touches anything outside the OS.
I've seen the opposite. It's the real SAs that make that money (as do some other roles), but never the "just whatever" positions.
-
@flaxking said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
In my SMB experience, SA work is not even the predominant role when working on servers. It's LOB management.
Now a book on application management concepts would be interesting.
It would be, fo sho. The challenge there would be picking a stack or app. Like... WordPress on Apache with MariaDB would be one. That could make sense.
QuickBooks on Windows 2019. That could work (but pretty simple.)
It's extremely hard to do anything general as each app is generally extremely unique. Even two PHP apps can be wildly different to the point of not being able to recognize them as related.
-
@IRJ said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Experience is the only teacher here. A book or online training will only teach you a very small portion of your jobs throughout your career.
Definitely, but there is a difference between a book that doesn't even know the field and one that gives you something to work from. I think too much of the industry has left discovering stuff to chance and little is known across corporate barriers.
-
@IRJ said in Topics of Systems Administration:
I agree with @JaredBusch. I've never seen this unicorn SA position you've always talked about.
What blows my mind is that I've known literally thousands of them. Many more of generalists, often with titles that don't reflect what they do. But real admins where 95%+ of their real work (discounting meetings, water cooler convoes, classes and the like) is systems... absolutely. Now of course, I've been in single departments with massive teams all in one place. So it adds up quickly. But in knowing those people, our experience spread across company after company and it was the same everywhere that they came from and went to.
-
My first IT job (not software) was as a junior UNIX admin, pure admin, in 1994. Working for the "senior" (who was pretty junior himself I'm guessing looking back) who was also a pure admin. That was my first introduction to it.
By 1999 was doing pure admin on Windows. In 2000, mixed Windows and Linux with just the tiniest addition of application stack (roughly LAMP stack), but the role was nearly all OS.
IBM in 2000 was my first major place where they operated as little SMB silos and while SA was a major part of the day, it was very far from all of it and I had to cover absolutely everything including both CIO and CTO hats. So IBM was about the polar opposite of pure SA.
Worked for Microsoft and Dell in a pure SA role in 2004 and 2005. Then Wall St., pure SA there. Then hedge fund row, same thing. Then non-profit in San Fran, definitely pure SA as well.
IBM certainly felt like the outlier with loads of disorganization and low efficiency. And it showed, they had to close the entire facility for exactly those reasons. From little ten person companies to fortune 10, from grocery to wildly different finance to medical to non-profits.
I'm not saying it's the norm, it's obviously not. But "norm" is weird to define when the alternative is "not-SA". LOL But if we use "companies" as the base number, maybe 1% of companies, at most, will reasonable try to have a real SA role. But then again, only 1% of companies is big enough to have value to it. But those that do, hire a lot and pay a lot.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
I have never seen a SA making $400k that never touches anything outside the OS.
Well, you've also said that you've never seen one at all, so this doesn't tell us anything additional. When I've seen roles in IT making over $400K, it's been either because they wear multiple hats and it's generally manager roles that cause the pay increase, or it's from being pure SA. From what I've seen, pure SA is the highest paid IT technical role with any volume to it.
My guess is, once you see pure SA you tend to see it a bit. And when you do see it, and rule out the things called that but clearly aren't, I bet you find (and I truly bet, because there's definitely no data on this) that the average salaries are crazy, like averages well over $150K in the US. Whereas the job by title, rather than responsibility, is like half that or less.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@flaxking said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
In my SMB experience, SA work is not even the predominant role when working on servers. It's LOB management.
Now a book on application management concepts would be interesting.
It would be, fo sho. The challenge there would be picking a stack or app. Like... WordPress on Apache with MariaDB would be one. That could make sense.
QuickBooks on Windows 2019. That could work (but pretty simple.)
It's extremely hard to do anything general as each app is generally extremely unique. Even two PHP apps can be wildly different to the point of not being able to recognize them as related.
I've feel like you're seeing the same challenge people had with writing sysadmin books.
An app managed by an experience IT generalist and one managed by say the manager of some department look setup very differently in my opinion. I believe the way the IT generalist approaches any app and sets it up could be outlined. Though it would probably have to use examples of things that of course won't be available or applicable in every app.
-
@flaxking said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@flaxking said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
In my SMB experience, SA work is not even the predominant role when working on servers. It's LOB management.
Now a book on application management concepts would be interesting.
It would be, fo sho. The challenge there would be picking a stack or app. Like... WordPress on Apache with MariaDB would be one. That could make sense.
QuickBooks on Windows 2019. That could work (but pretty simple.)
It's extremely hard to do anything general as each app is generally extremely unique. Even two PHP apps can be wildly different to the point of not being able to recognize them as related.
I've feel like you're seeing the same challenge people had with writing sysadmin books.
An app managed by an experience IT generalist and one managed by say the manager of some department look setup very differently in my opinion. I believe the way the IT generalist approaches any app and sets it up could be outlined. Though it would probably have to use examples of things that of course won't be available or applicable in every app.
Something like.... deployment strategies for apps, like taking a piece from the architecture side of things.... now that could be interesting. Like: when do you use a database, a local database management system, or a remote database management system. High availability strategies (platform, application, etc.)
-
Troubleshooting v Reimage.
I don't know about you folk but where something is broken and the estimate is more than one hour to fix, we just reimage as it is faster and brings the machine to a known good state - providing not a hardware issue. Any book should cover something similar as I have seen lots of IT folk spend days on a problem (read, money), where they should just reimage.
-
-
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Troubleshooting v Reimage.
I don't know about you folk but where something is broken and the estimate is more than one hour to fix, we just reimage as it is faster and brings the machine to a known good state - providing not a hardware issue. Any book should cover something similar as I have seen lots of IT folk spend days on a problem (read, money), where they should just reimage.
I was talking about that with some lay people just over the weekend!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
how do I not know that one?
No Idea. It's required reading.
-
Inside, you'll find advice on topics such as
- The key elements your networks and systems need in order to make all other services run better
- Building and running reliable, scalable services, including web, storage, email, printing, and remote access
- Creating and enforcing security policies
- Upgrading multiple hosts at one time without creating havoc
- Planning for and performing flawless scheduled maintenance windows
- Managing superior helpdesks and customer care
- Avoiding the "temporary fix" trap
- Building data centers that improve server uptime
- Designing networks for speed and reliability
- Web scaling and security issues
- Why building a backup system isn't about backups
- Monitoring what you have and predicting what you will need
- How technically oriented workers can maintain their job's technical focus (and avoid an unwanted management role)
- Technical management issues, including morale, organization building, coaching, and maintaining positive visibility
- Personal skill techniques, including secrets for getting more done each day, ethical dilemmas, managing your boss, and loving your job
- System administration salary negotiation
It's a really complete book, and a great read.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
I have never seen a SA making $400k that never touches anything outside the OS.
Well, you've also said that you've never seen one at all, so this doesn't tell us anything additional. When I've seen roles in IT making over $400K, it's been either because they wear multiple hats and it's generally manager roles that cause the pay increase, or it's from being pure SA. From what I've seen, pure SA is the highest paid IT technical role with any volume to it.
My guess is, once you see pure SA you tend to see it a bit. And when you do see it, and rule out the things called that but clearly aren't, I bet you find (and I truly bet, because there's definitely no data on this) that the average salaries are crazy, like averages well over $150K in the US. Whereas the job by title, rather than responsibility, is like half that or less.
I was a "pure SA" for a fortune 50. I was a "pure SA" for a fortune 1000. No other SA in either (or any other SAs that I have talked to) make anywhere near that. You're the only person that keeps saying this. Job postings for Citi show they aren't "pure SAs" as you claim. One posting I found called the position an SA but wanted Unix, Linux, Windows, Oracle, networking experience. They set the job at medium to senior experience.
The only people I have seen making those numbers are devs for fortune 20s and roles like SRE (that aren't management).
Edit: added the management clarification.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Topics of Systems Administration:
My first IT job (not software) was as a junior UNIX admin, pure admin, in 1994. Working for the "senior" (who was pretty junior himself I'm guessing looking back) who was also a pure admin. That was my first introduction to it.
By 1999 was doing pure admin on Windows. In 2000, mixed Windows and Linux with just the tiniest addition of application stack (roughly LAMP stack), but the role was nearly all OS.
IBM in 2000 was my first major place where they operated as little SMB silos and while SA was a major part of the day, it was very far from all of it and I had to cover absolutely everything including both CIO and CTO hats. So IBM was about the polar opposite of pure SA.
Worked for Microsoft and Dell in a pure SA role in 2004 and 2005. Then Wall St., pure SA there. Then hedge fund row, same thing. Then non-profit in San Fran, definitely pure SA as well.
IBM certainly felt like the outlier with loads of disorganization and low efficiency. And it showed, they had to close the entire facility for exactly those reasons. From little ten person companies to fortune 10, from grocery to wildly different finance to medical to non-profits.
I'm not saying it's the norm, it's obviously not. But "norm" is weird to define when the alternative is "not-SA". LOL But if we use "companies" as the base number, maybe 1% of companies, at most, will reasonable try to have a real SA role. But then again, only 1% of companies is big enough to have value to it. But those that do, hire a lot and pay a lot.
Just being honest, I have quite a few doubts of your employment history. It seems to change quite a bit to fit the scenario, and there are times where you are working 3 full time jobs for 3 different companies. You say you couldn't get a job after Citi because of a non compete, but they allowed you to work one to two other jobs while you were employed there? That doesn't make any sense.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
Job postings for Citi show they aren't "pure SAs" as you claim.
CitiGroup not Citi.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
You're the only person that keeps saying this.
Maybe I'm the only person you know with that kind of experience. That's the thing I was saying about the barrier, jobs in this range aren't advertised on job sites full of fluff and fake listings. They go through headhunters. If you filter for only low to mid range sites, of course you see low to mid range jobs.
-
@stacksofplates said in Topics of Systems Administration:
You say you couldn't get a job after Citi because of a non compete,
I never said that. My non-compete was years after being at a bank.
