4 ms·

We're a small B2B company. For VMs, AWS doesn't have a data center in our country (Norway) which is important due to data storage regulations, nobody sane picks

We're a small B2B company. For VMs, AWS doesn't have a data center in our country (Norway) which is important due to data storage regulations, nobody sane picks Google for anything they need to rely on... so it's Azure or some local players. We've tried the latter, twice, they got bought and support quality tanked both times. We don't want to manage hardware yet, so... Also, customers want MSSQL, and managed MSSQL is nice since it's trivial to scale up and down with the needs of the customer. Started using their other services like Service Bus, Blob Storage and Application Insights. We're using .Net so integration is quite simple. It wasn't my call, but there weren't that many great alternatives from what I can see.

nl 3y ago
> nobody sane picks Google for anything they need to rely on.. In the case of GCP this is untrue. > We're using .Net so integration is quite simple. This is the reason for most deployments. They are MS shops so the go with the MS Cloud.
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  > In the case of GCP this is untrue. You're probably right, but anything that isn't core to their ad business seems highly risky to rely on long-term. I certainly wouldn't risk recommending them.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> customers want MSSQL Why would they want that when PostgreSQL exists? That's like saying customers "want" Oracle databases despite the existence of this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  Integrated in-memory tables, columnstore analytics, etc… Postgres has its strengths, but so does MSSQL.
- PrivateButts 3y ago
  Unfortunately you don't get to choose the database that the very expensive canned software the company bought years ago runs on.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    That's more of a "I'm forced to use this thing against my will because I'm locked in" situation rather than "I want to use this thing".
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  This comes from the large customers who still wants on-prem. They already run it due to other software than ours, so their IT is already familiar and has permissions, auditing etc in place.

nl 3y ago

> nobody sane picks Google for anything they need to rely on.. In the case of GCP this is untrue. > We're using .Net so integration is quite simple. This is the reason for most deployments. They are MS shops so the go with the MS Cloud.

magicalhippo 3y ago
> In the case of GCP this is untrue. You're probably right, but anything that isn't core to their ad business seems highly risky to rely on long-term. I certainly wouldn't risk recommending them.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> customers want MSSQL Why would they want that when PostgreSQL exists? That's like saying customers "want" Oracle databases despite the existence of this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941

jiggawatts 3y ago
Integrated in-memory tables, columnstore analytics, etc… Postgres has its strengths, but so does MSSQL.
PrivateButts 3y ago
Unfortunately you don't get to choose the database that the very expensive canned software the company bought years ago runs on.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  That's more of a "I'm forced to use this thing against my will because I'm locked in" situation rather than "I want to use this thing".
magicalhippo 3y ago
This comes from the large customers who still wants on-prem. They already run it due to other software than ours, so their IT is already familiar and has permissions, auditing etc in place.