4 ms·

If only you had read the whole sentence, you might have saved yourself a bit of righteous anger.

Paul-Craft 4y ago
I think you've failed to consider how impractical even doing a SQL dump can be on a large-ish database, forget about the reloading time.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  I haven't failed to consider that, you've just failed to read where I explicitly mentioned that. Consider: is that impracticality caused by Amazon creating vendor lock-in? Or is that impracticality caused by the fact that reading terabytes of data from storage, transferring it over the network, and writing it into storage is inherently slow because of the physical limitations of hardware, no matter what vendor you're using? It's a bit odd for me to be in the position of defending Amazon here. I genuinely don't like them, don't use them, and generally do think they're guilty of creating a lot of vendor lock-in. But this is legitimately not an example of any of that.
  - Paul-Craft 4y ago
    I didn't miss where you mentioned it. I missed where you considered it. As in, you know, gave any thought to the practicalities involved.
    - kerkeslager 4y ago
      You're really claiming you can read my mind to know what I have and have not considered right now, despite me bringing it up specifically. Alrighty then.
      - Paul-Craft 4y ago
        I'm simply going by what you've written here. If you have considered it, then you have not "shown your work," so to speak.
        kerkeslager 4y ago
        And if I were being graded that would matter. As is, I've no responsibility to show you anything, and you're just making unwarranted assumptions about what I have and haven't considered, based on a pretty selective reading of what I've said.
Ensorceled 4y ago
You seem to be the one angry here. I'm not sure what I was supposed to take away from your cryptic sentence. Is there a two minute solution to this problem that you are smugly keeping to yourself so you can mock people replying to you?
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  My guy, read this whole sentence, which has remained unchanged this entire conversation: "There's no way to move from Aurora to RDS short of... 2 minutes of actual work and a lot of waiting around due to the limitations of the hardware?" You seem to be having trouble getting past the word "and", so I've helpfully italicized the part you've repeatedly missed or ignored. Now sure, that's a bit vague, but if you want more details it might have been advisable to ask a question rather than simply ignoring half the sentence because you don't understand it and jumping in with a correction. And honestly, even if it's vague on some details, there's no universe in which "2 minutes and a lot of waiting around" = "2 minutes". Whatever vagueness you might accuse me of, that fact isn't vague.
  - confiq 3y ago
    hey, that is fair answer! AFAIK, there are two things that consider: * Aurora do have some vendor-locking feature if I'm not wrong? * moving from Aurora to PostGres will lead to downtime of 2 minutes + unknown waiting, where this is not a case when you convert from PostGres to Aurora.

I think you've failed to consider how impractical even doing a SQL dump can be on a large-ish database, forget about the reloading time.

kerkeslager 4y ago
I haven't failed to consider that, you've just failed to read where I explicitly mentioned that. Consider: is that impracticality caused by Amazon creating vendor lock-in? Or is that impracticality caused by the fact that reading terabytes of data from storage, transferring it over the network, and writing it into storage is inherently slow because of the physical limitations of hardware, no matter what vendor you're using? It's a bit odd for me to be in the position of defending Amazon here. I genuinely don't like them, don't use them, and generally do think they're guilty of creating a lot of vendor lock-in. But this is legitimately not an example of any of that.
- Paul-Craft 4y ago
  I didn't miss where you mentioned it. I missed where you considered it. As in, you know, gave any thought to the practicalities involved.
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    You're really claiming you can read my mind to know what I have and have not considered right now, despite me bringing it up specifically. Alrighty then.
    - Paul-Craft 4y ago
      I'm simply going by what you've written here. If you have considered it, then you have not "shown your work," so to speak.
      - kerkeslager 4y ago
        And if I were being graded that would matter. As is, I've no responsibility to show you anything, and you're just making unwarranted assumptions about what I have and haven't considered, based on a pretty selective reading of what I've said.

Ensorceled 4y ago

You seem to be the one angry here. I'm not sure what I was supposed to take away from your cryptic sentence. Is there a two minute solution to this problem that you are smugly keeping to yourself so you can mock people replying to you?

kerkeslager 4y ago
My guy, read this whole sentence, which has remained unchanged this entire conversation: "There's no way to move from Aurora to RDS short of... 2 minutes of actual work and a lot of waiting around due to the limitations of the hardware?" You seem to be having trouble getting past the word "and", so I've helpfully italicized the part you've repeatedly missed or ignored. Now sure, that's a bit vague, but if you want more details it might have been advisable to ask a question rather than simply ignoring half the sentence because you don't understand it and jumping in with a correction. And honestly, even if it's vague on some details, there's no universe in which "2 minutes and a lot of waiting around" = "2 minutes". Whatever vagueness you might accuse me of, that fact isn't vague.
- confiq 3y ago
  hey, that is fair answer! AFAIK, there are two things that consider: * Aurora do have some vendor-locking feature if I'm not wrong? * moving from Aurora to PostGres will lead to downtime of 2 minutes + unknown waiting, where this is not a case when you convert from PostGres to Aurora.