What is a "system administrator"
Suddenly discovered that amarao decided to make a series of articles on How to become a system administrator . But before you decide to "become" them, it is worth finding out who this is and what he should do.
Personally, I am a little depressed by the current situation with the name of the specialty. This is similar to how, at the dawn of computer technology, everyone who was somehow able to work with computers was strictly divided into two groups, the “user” and “programmer”. You can only turn on and with one finger poke - the user. you understand what is happening inside - a programmer. So now everyone who is "not a programmer" began to call sysadmins.
So, I want to make some clarity on what a system administrator is.
')
I would formulate this specialty the only way - the maximum position in the management of all information systems of the enterprise.
A system administrator is a person whose job is to:
First of all - in policy making and planning the organization of all information systems and networks in the company.
In everyday life - the implementation of this plan, recreating it in hardware, device configuration, setting up software, tuning, monitoring the state of networks, preventing random violations, attacks and other threats.
In the future - development planning and modernization, the study of new opportunities and trends.
This post is only half "technical", and the second half is "political." The system administrator is the highest IT manager, who determines how and where all of the IT in the company will move, and ultimately how easy and convenient it will be to use the “benefits of IT” for each specific user. Below the level are separate “narrow” administrators, such as database administrators, customer support services, perhaps programmers writing some local modules. Above the level is only “non-technical management” - top management and company executives. For example, management, due to lack of necessary technical knowledge, is simply not able to know what equipment is needed to build a network, where there are bottlenecks and how much each of them affects or may affect business processes. As a rule, higher-ups only need to have information “how much it will cost us money and time” and “how much it will simplify the work / increase reliability”. And how and what technologies will be used, how and what users will receive, what they will be able to do, and what will not - these are the decisions of the system administrator.
The fact that many (and even amarao in their article sinned by this :) is called the admin is often an “enikeyshchik” (system engineer, shift engineer, technical support engineer), his task is really to deal with buggy Windows, printers and other small junk user . I understand that in a company with a couple of hundreds of workplaces it makes little sense to take a separate system administrator (as a rule, there are no such tasks), so it turns out that an enikeyschik sits, and to the extent of free time and experience, he performs tasks for setting up servers and hardware. There is nothing terrible in this, in the end, almost all system administrators began to work with enikeyschiki, only they are not real system administrators.
I worked several times as a system administrator in companies where more than a thousand jobs are distributed over a large area. For example, in one of them for two years of work, I have never seen the end user, and only spoke a couple of times with them on the phone. But for that, responsibility for the correctness of the chosen network construction policy, procurement planning for further development, the operability of all information systems, software, servers, and data integrity are on the administrator. From enikeyschika no one will ask for the loss of data, or the line is broken - but for the sysadmin it will immediately be disqualified if they were not provided for in the structure of backup paths that ensure uninterrupted work in case of failure of individual nodes and fast recovery options for any structure. And the decisions that the system administrator makes usually affect all employees, one way or another working with computers. It is the system administrator who sets the task of writing the necessary modules to programmers, and introduces rules for working with software for the entire company.
I would like to draw an analogy with the city sewers - the system administrator is the chief engineer of the city, who plans how and where it is necessary to take the pipes, where to build and how to connect the substations. But the bearded one and in a sweater is most likely a local plumber who changes the pipes in the house and does the wiring around the apartment. Without diminishing the need of all professions, this is a very different thing in terms of knowledge, education and tasks to be solved.
I also disagree with the division into “core” and “non-core” employers. It is more likely to talk about whether there is demand for serious IT for each particular business. For example, if you look at trading at all - they don’t need computers at all, they set up a cashier and hurt money. Nevertheless, I observed one of the most interesting and developed IT infrastructures in a large trading network. And they did not stint on development there, since they understood that this is the “blood” of the business and when the network lies down, there will be no sales, and these are huge losses, both direct due to the equipment standing and indirect from loss of trust.
PS And another interesting thing that has been noticed over many years, which is the sticking point of all the excellent system administrators I have seen, is almost a maniacal passion for organizing everything that is in his subordination, starting from equipment configuration, documenting infrastructures and laying patch cords in switching cabinets, and ending in perfect order on your own desktop. And by the way, there were no bearded sweaters among them, a good sysadmin is more like a manager.
PPS I leave behind the article all “narrow” administrators, such as administrators of web servers, databases, mail, domain, storage systems, network, and so on. Although even the average system administrator should have a clear idea about the essence of these specialties and regularly consult and take into account the opinions of experts or dive into the field itself (if you have the strength and capabilities) in your work.
UPD: My thoughts were well formulated by inkvizitor68sl in the comment : “The task of the system administrator is to build a system that anyone can work with. Make it clear. Or document it. When the work with the end users appears in the task list, the person starts working in two professions. ”
UPD2: Well, I admit that in my post the system administrator performs three roles - CIO, administrator and architect. Because even in large companies it is quite a job for one good specialist.
Topic - a reason for discussion.
Personally, I am a little depressed by the current situation with the name of the specialty. This is similar to how, at the dawn of computer technology, everyone who was somehow able to work with computers was strictly divided into two groups, the “user” and “programmer”. You can only turn on and with one finger poke - the user. you understand what is happening inside - a programmer. So now everyone who is "not a programmer" began to call sysadmins.
So, I want to make some clarity on what a system administrator is.
')
I would formulate this specialty the only way - the maximum position in the management of all information systems of the enterprise.
A system administrator is a person whose job is to:
First of all - in policy making and planning the organization of all information systems and networks in the company.
In everyday life - the implementation of this plan, recreating it in hardware, device configuration, setting up software, tuning, monitoring the state of networks, preventing random violations, attacks and other threats.
In the future - development planning and modernization, the study of new opportunities and trends.
This post is only half "technical", and the second half is "political." The system administrator is the highest IT manager, who determines how and where all of the IT in the company will move, and ultimately how easy and convenient it will be to use the “benefits of IT” for each specific user. Below the level are separate “narrow” administrators, such as database administrators, customer support services, perhaps programmers writing some local modules. Above the level is only “non-technical management” - top management and company executives. For example, management, due to lack of necessary technical knowledge, is simply not able to know what equipment is needed to build a network, where there are bottlenecks and how much each of them affects or may affect business processes. As a rule, higher-ups only need to have information “how much it will cost us money and time” and “how much it will simplify the work / increase reliability”. And how and what technologies will be used, how and what users will receive, what they will be able to do, and what will not - these are the decisions of the system administrator.
The fact that many (and even amarao in their article sinned by this :) is called the admin is often an “enikeyshchik” (system engineer, shift engineer, technical support engineer), his task is really to deal with buggy Windows, printers and other small junk user . I understand that in a company with a couple of hundreds of workplaces it makes little sense to take a separate system administrator (as a rule, there are no such tasks), so it turns out that an enikeyschik sits, and to the extent of free time and experience, he performs tasks for setting up servers and hardware. There is nothing terrible in this, in the end, almost all system administrators began to work with enikeyschiki, only they are not real system administrators.
I worked several times as a system administrator in companies where more than a thousand jobs are distributed over a large area. For example, in one of them for two years of work, I have never seen the end user, and only spoke a couple of times with them on the phone. But for that, responsibility for the correctness of the chosen network construction policy, procurement planning for further development, the operability of all information systems, software, servers, and data integrity are on the administrator. From enikeyschika no one will ask for the loss of data, or the line is broken - but for the sysadmin it will immediately be disqualified if they were not provided for in the structure of backup paths that ensure uninterrupted work in case of failure of individual nodes and fast recovery options for any structure. And the decisions that the system administrator makes usually affect all employees, one way or another working with computers. It is the system administrator who sets the task of writing the necessary modules to programmers, and introduces rules for working with software for the entire company.
I would like to draw an analogy with the city sewers - the system administrator is the chief engineer of the city, who plans how and where it is necessary to take the pipes, where to build and how to connect the substations. But the bearded one and in a sweater is most likely a local plumber who changes the pipes in the house and does the wiring around the apartment. Without diminishing the need of all professions, this is a very different thing in terms of knowledge, education and tasks to be solved.
I also disagree with the division into “core” and “non-core” employers. It is more likely to talk about whether there is demand for serious IT for each particular business. For example, if you look at trading at all - they don’t need computers at all, they set up a cashier and hurt money. Nevertheless, I observed one of the most interesting and developed IT infrastructures in a large trading network. And they did not stint on development there, since they understood that this is the “blood” of the business and when the network lies down, there will be no sales, and these are huge losses, both direct due to the equipment standing and indirect from loss of trust.
PS And another interesting thing that has been noticed over many years, which is the sticking point of all the excellent system administrators I have seen, is almost a maniacal passion for organizing everything that is in his subordination, starting from equipment configuration, documenting infrastructures and laying patch cords in switching cabinets, and ending in perfect order on your own desktop. And by the way, there were no bearded sweaters among them, a good sysadmin is more like a manager.
PPS I leave behind the article all “narrow” administrators, such as administrators of web servers, databases, mail, domain, storage systems, network, and so on. Although even the average system administrator should have a clear idea about the essence of these specialties and regularly consult and take into account the opinions of experts or dive into the field itself (if you have the strength and capabilities) in your work.
UPD: My thoughts were well formulated by inkvizitor68sl in the comment : “The task of the system administrator is to build a system that anyone can work with. Make it clear. Or document it. When the work with the end users appears in the task list, the person starts working in two professions. ”
UPD2: Well, I admit that in my post the system administrator performs three roles - CIO, administrator and architect. Because even in large companies it is quite a job for one good specialist.
Topic - a reason for discussion.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/119025/
All Articles