6 ms·

Managed DBs have tremendous lock in. Just try migrating off RDS with zero downtime. You can't, because they've "managed" your ability to configure external repl

by mrkurt 5y ago

Managed DBs have tremendous lock in. Just try migrating off RDS with zero downtime. You can't, because they've "managed" your ability to configure external replicas. Then built a whole brittle data migration service that probably won't work for your DB.

jeffffff 5y ago
they've already had to migrate twice due to questionable technology decisions. having to migrate again due to needing to change cloud providers seems a lot less likely than having to migrate again because their outside the box technology choice didn't pan out.
- tptacek 5y ago
  "Questionable technology decisions". You're trying to dunk, but I don't think you understand where the hoop is. Their technology decisions have panned out Tailscale well. We should all be so fortunate. This isn't Twitter with the "fail whale"; the only reason you know about any of this stuff is because they wrote about it. They ran their entire service with a JSON file backend for 18 months, and switched from it to etcd without you even knowing about it.
  - jeffffff 5y ago
    i really don't know a ton about this product or team but it sounds like if they had used aurora mysql or aurora postgres in the first place then there would be nothing to write a blog post about because it would've just worked and kept working. they say they want to avoid vendor lock-in but if the vendor became a real issue they'd be doing their first migration instead of being on v3 already. additionally, their bespoke solution relies on s3, which is also a vendor-specific technology, so it seems like they haven't avoided vendor lock in? i've seen many cases of developers doing more work to avoid vendor lock-in than it would take to replatform if it ended up being a necessity, and this really feels like that looking at it from the outside. i'd understand this better if mysql or postgres couldn't solve their problem, but that is not the case here, and i can't wrap my head around a company who is ok with their devs reinventing a very good wheel 3 times when the obvious choice would've worked fine the first time. it seems like they are successful in spite of these decisions, not because of these decisions. https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology
    - tptacek 5y ago
      You should start by learning more about the product, and then tell them they should use Aurora for all their backing store.
      - jeffffff 5y ago
        tptacek 5y ago
        You don't know what this database is --- upthread, you said you don't even know what the product is. All you appear to know is that they should be using something like RDS. Isn't that a weird position to take?
        jeffffff 5y ago
        it's also kinda weird to write a blog post about a database being used for what is apparently a very specific use case without mentioning what that use case is. the burden of proof is on tailscale to explain why they need to deviate from industry norm here and clearly from the entire comment thread of people wondering the same thing as me they haven't done that. this blog post might actually be valuable if they included more context so that people could learn when something like this might be a good idea, especially since it's not a good idea >99% of the time. as is, no one should be surprised by this response.
        tptacek 5y ago
        This is one of several comments you've written where you've acknowledged you don't know what the use case is. But you've stridently insisted that they should have used Aurora Postgres or Aurora MySQL. You get how strange this take is, right? One thing that would have helped your writing on this thread: a lot more question marks. It's OK not to understand something! Asking questions helps everybody.
  - IshKebab 5y ago
    They're not questionable because they didn't work, they're questionable because they were so difficult to run that they had to migrate twice. You could absolutely run a web site using Brainfuck without any failures or any customers realising it. Doesn't mean it's not a questionable decision!
  - hokus_p2 5y ago
    The etcd solution was highly questionable. Actually, a prime example for reinventing the wheel, but worse.
- growse 5y ago
  Choosing a technology that supports your business needs and growth, and that also lets you easily migrate to something else once it stops being suitable (or your requirements change, or you discover a way in which the tech doesn't work for you, or whatever), doesn't sound like a questionable technology decision, it sounds like a great one.
Winsaucerer 5y ago
I'm having a really difficult time migrating my managed postgresql instance in Google Cloud just to get it to a newer version. I'm down to my last option: shut down everything, export, re-import somewhere else again. I did briefly have logical replication working, and so had my near zero downtime solution in hand. But the replication broke after a few days because I delayed cutting over, and then I couldn't get it going again. I couldn't find out how to debug this either. The lesson I've learned here is that I'll be avoiding managed DB products whenever I can. It takes away control that turns out I sometimes really need.

by mrkurt 5y ago

jeffffff 5y ago

they've already had to migrate twice due to questionable technology decisions. having to migrate again due to needing to change cloud providers seems a lot less likely than having to migrate again because their outside the box technology choice didn't pan out.

tptacek 5y ago
"Questionable technology decisions". You're trying to dunk, but I don't think you understand where the hoop is. Their technology decisions have panned out Tailscale well. We should all be so fortunate. This isn't Twitter with the "fail whale"; the only reason you know about any of this stuff is because they wrote about it. They ran their entire service with a JSON file backend for 18 months, and switched from it to etcd without you even knowing about it.
- jeffffff 5y ago
  i really don't know a ton about this product or team but it sounds like if they had used aurora mysql or aurora postgres in the first place then there would be nothing to write a blog post about because it would've just worked and kept working. they say they want to avoid vendor lock-in but if the vendor became a real issue they'd be doing their first migration instead of being on v3 already. additionally, their bespoke solution relies on s3, which is also a vendor-specific technology, so it seems like they haven't avoided vendor lock in? i've seen many cases of developers doing more work to avoid vendor lock-in than it would take to replatform if it ended up being a necessity, and this really feels like that looking at it from the outside. i'd understand this better if mysql or postgres couldn't solve their problem, but that is not the case here, and i can't wrap my head around a company who is ok with their devs reinventing a very good wheel 3 times when the obvious choice would've worked fine the first time. it seems like they are successful in spite of these decisions, not because of these decisions. https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology
  - tptacek 5y ago
    You should start by learning more about the product, and then tell them they should use Aurora for all their backing store.
    - jeffffff 5y ago
      - tptacek 5y ago
        You don't know what this database is --- upthread, you said you don't even know what the product is. All you appear to know is that they should be using something like RDS. Isn't that a weird position to take?
        jeffffff 5y ago
        it's also kinda weird to write a blog post about a database being used for what is apparently a very specific use case without mentioning what that use case is. the burden of proof is on tailscale to explain why they need to deviate from industry norm here and clearly from the entire comment thread of people wondering the same thing as me they haven't done that. this blog post might actually be valuable if they included more context so that people could learn when something like this might be a good idea, especially since it's not a good idea >99% of the time. as is, no one should be surprised by this response.
        tptacek 5y ago
        This is one of several comments you've written where you've acknowledged you don't know what the use case is. But you've stridently insisted that they should have used Aurora Postgres or Aurora MySQL. You get how strange this take is, right? One thing that would have helped your writing on this thread: a lot more question marks. It's OK not to understand something! Asking questions helps everybody.
- IshKebab 5y ago
  They're not questionable because they didn't work, they're questionable because they were so difficult to run that they had to migrate twice. You could absolutely run a web site using Brainfuck without any failures or any customers realising it. Doesn't mean it's not a questionable decision!
- hokus_p2 5y ago
  The etcd solution was highly questionable. Actually, a prime example for reinventing the wheel, but worse.
growse 5y ago
Choosing a technology that supports your business needs and growth, and that also lets you easily migrate to something else once it stops being suitable (or your requirements change, or you discover a way in which the tech doesn't work for you, or whatever), doesn't sound like a questionable technology decision, it sounds like a great one.

Winsaucerer 5y ago

I'm having a really difficult time migrating my managed postgresql instance in Google Cloud just to get it to a newer version. I'm down to my last option: shut down everything, export, re-import somewhere else again. I did briefly have logical replication working, and so had my near zero downtime solution in hand. But the replication broke after a few days because I delayed cutting over, and then I couldn't get it going again. I couldn't find out how to debug this either. The lesson I've learned here is that I'll be avoiding managed DB products whenever I can. It takes away control that turns out I sometimes really need.