Hi there,
I would vote for removing SQL from LPIC-1 during the next objective
update too. Unfortunately this will be somewhere far away in the future
as we're just switching to version 4.
As Martin points out, user management and security are important for
database administrators -- as they are for plenty of services, like an
XMPP service or restrictive VPN access. Also, as Harald mentioned, all
data needs to be backed up. But again, this is application specific.
However, these aspects change the focus of the objective (specific
server management/operation ("dealing with the database process") vs.
DDL/SQL ("dealing with the database content")) as well as its position
on the LPIC-track (should be somewhere near Apache as an own topic,
which means LPIC-2, as it is no core system service). And this not only
opens up the discussion of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, it may also attract one
or the other NoSQL guy waiting around the corner... so where to put an
end to all those possibilities to be included or not?
I'm not sure why we have SQL on the exams right not, t may have come
from the "LAMP" term, but than I'd suggest reconsidering its relevance
in case we HOPEFULLY one day get to work on the pending LPIC-3 exams (a
long long time ago people thought about having an exam 306 Web
Services). IMHO for sysadmins even LDAP has a higher relevance than SQL,
which is why it was moved to LPIC-2. Also, in 304 we don't specifically
test database HA, although it has some specific aspects. But is just
considered one application next to others with our focus not being those
applications but the general infrastructure. I'd like to do the same
regarding SQL in LPIC-1.
As we just had a large review of the LPIC-1 objectives I added the SQL
issue to the "Future Change Consideration" section of the wiki page so
that we can come back to that discussion once we get the change to
reevaluate the objectives again. We *may* consider placing database
servers in the next LPIC-2 JTA as well, but I personally would like to
see it being part of a "Web server administrator" exam that includes the
whole LAMP-stack in all its derivations. But this is yet nothing to even
dream about :(
Regards,
Fabian
On 02/10/2015 06:39 PM, Hendrik Jan Thomassen wrote:
> Dear listers,
>
> I fully agree with Simone Piccardi who wrote:
>
>> I'm totally against changing the topic or raising it weight, in my
>> opinion 2 question on SQL are already too much, I'd prefer 0, like it
>> was. LPI should be a Linux Sysadmin Certification, this is a generic
>> argument, it tell almost nothing about you are proficient in Linux.
> To me, SQL is "just another application domain".
>
> I have spent decades of my career as a full time UNIX administrator
> in a technical environment without ever touching SQL.
> If you argue that many administrators get involved in SQL, the same
> is true for HTML, or colour theory, or version control systems, or ......
>
> There are many more reasons to examine XML basics, because that really
> is a topic that any modern Linux administrator needs a basic grasp of.
>
> Hendrik-Jan Thomassen
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
