3 ms·

I’d say a system not designed to support maintenance is not properly architected. You will need maintenance windows for an individual subsystem to perform OS up

by fmajid 4y ago

I’d say a system not designed to support maintenance is not properly architected. You will need maintenance windows for an individual subsystem to perform OS upgrades, DB upgrades are no different and Postgres upgrades using pg_upgrade are relatively painless, provided you test them first in CI or against production snapshots, something the author’s company seemingly lacks.

amtamt 4y ago
"a system not designed to support maintenance is not properly architected" Indeed, but who cares about the system design anymore? How many companies/ teams can claim honestly they even had a person with proper DBA competency, while features over features were added in sprints doing the minimum required to get the feature shipped out at the soonest possible (usually one DB schema change with feature and then one or more to add index due to performance regressions)? DBA competency is only sought when DB schema has fubar'd to an extent that frequent outages are norms or the version used is EOL'd by a few months at least. And by that time the people who "designed" the system are gone, not having documented ever why a given decision was made. And that is how my friend... DB upgrades are hard.
- tluyben2 4y ago
  Indeed you can get away with a lot now but just paying (a lot) more money; it feels like design is no longer needed as it works. It is how I make some money; people come to me with; ‘we run some trivial online shop made by our team and with 100k uniques a month we pay $15k+ for rds, is that normal?’. So I go in and fix it. Usually it is bad or no design of the db schemas which was countered by picking heavy rds instances. Fun times considering I expect this to be the case in a very high % of all rds deployments (all that I have seen so far, so for me it’s 100%), not only the ones that asked me for help. When asked, the story is the usual ‘people are more expensive than hardware’ blah. It usually takes me around $1000 in fees to cut half the costs so that is blatantly false. Not to mention that the human costs are one off; if someone pays me 20k to bring 15k/mo to 1k/mo (which is typical), it is worth it. Unfortunately that’s not the break everything and go bankrupt way of working I guess! Still I notice that in current harder Financial Times, I do get more requests.
hoffs 4y ago
How happy are you when your global bank has downtime in middle of the day?
- PhineasRex 4y ago
  You wouldn't schedule downtime for the middle of the day. You schedule downtime during your period of least usage.
- fmajid 4y ago
  You design the complete system so it does not have dependencies on a single component, that way each subsystem can have proper maintenance schedules. It takes a lot more up-front work, along with defining what levels of service degradation are acceptable during a window, but that's the difference between a professionally run service and one run by amateurs. Look up Google's SRE methodology and their concept of error budget.

by fmajid 4y ago

amtamt 4y ago

"a system not designed to support maintenance is not properly architected" Indeed, but who cares about the system design anymore? How many companies/ teams can claim honestly they even had a person with proper DBA competency, while features over features were added in sprints doing the minimum required to get the feature shipped out at the soonest possible (usually one DB schema change with feature and then one or more to add index due to performance regressions)? DBA competency is only sought when DB schema has fubar'd to an extent that frequent outages are norms or the version used is EOL'd by a few months at least. And by that time the people who "designed" the system are gone, not having documented ever why a given decision was made. And that is how my friend... DB upgrades are hard.

tluyben2 4y ago
Indeed you can get away with a lot now but just paying (a lot) more money; it feels like design is no longer needed as it works. It is how I make some money; people come to me with; ‘we run some trivial online shop made by our team and with 100k uniques a month we pay $15k+ for rds, is that normal?’. So I go in and fix it. Usually it is bad or no design of the db schemas which was countered by picking heavy rds instances. Fun times considering I expect this to be the case in a very high % of all rds deployments (all that I have seen so far, so for me it’s 100%), not only the ones that asked me for help. When asked, the story is the usual ‘people are more expensive than hardware’ blah. It usually takes me around $1000 in fees to cut half the costs so that is blatantly false. Not to mention that the human costs are one off; if someone pays me 20k to bring 15k/mo to 1k/mo (which is typical), it is worth it. Unfortunately that’s not the break everything and go bankrupt way of working I guess! Still I notice that in current harder Financial Times, I do get more requests.

hoffs 4y ago

How happy are you when your global bank has downtime in middle of the day?

PhineasRex 4y ago
You wouldn't schedule downtime for the middle of the day. You schedule downtime during your period of least usage.
fmajid 4y ago
You design the complete system so it does not have dependencies on a single component, that way each subsystem can have proper maintenance schedules. It takes a lot more up-front work, along with defining what levels of service degradation are acceptable during a window, but that's the difference between a professionally run service and one run by amateurs. Look up Google's SRE methodology and their concept of error budget.