6 ms·
They aren't just dropping support - they're dropping the databases! > On 19 September 2025, workloads running Azure Database for MariaDB will be deleted and as
by arrakeenrevived 3y ago
They aren't just dropping support - they're dropping the databases!
> On 19 September 2025, workloads running Azure Database for MariaDB will be deleted and associated application data will be lost.
This is the most insane part to me. Not only will they not support it, they're going to delete all of your data!
- djoletina 3y agoHow is this insane, it’s a managed db that is no longer going to exist and they’re giving you two years to migrate away. Sounds fair to me.
- arrakeenrevived 3y agoIn comparison to other cloud companies, AWS "deprecated" SimpleDB over a decade ago and stopped letting new people use it, but still hasn't deleted the data for anyone that is still using it. EC2 Classic was the same. Not giving updates and not allowing customers to create new instances is one thing, and is normally how these big deprecations are done. Outright destroying your customers' data just because they didn't migrate in time is wild (and its very easy for something like a database migration to take much longer than 2 years).
- theownan 3y ago[dead]
- alwaysrunning 3y agoin comparison Azure depreciated Azure classic VMs in 2014 and just last month stopped letting customers run them. If it takes you more than two years to plan and migrate a DB your likely not running it on MariaDB and if you are there are plenty of consultants that can migrate your apps back end in less than two years. Hopefully if you are running a db you are also backing it up so the idea that data is being destroyed is a bit dramatic.
- mpixel 3y agoThere also other cloud companies to depend on that have been more sane. I doubt that in practice this will cause huge insurmountable challenges, but it's a headache and not a ton of fun.
- yawaramin 3y agoIf you are willing to let two years pass by and then allow your database to get completely deleted, why wouldn't you rather take a small hit on delivery of some other projects in six months, possibly face a small amount of downtime, and migrate away so you get to keep your data?
- djoletina 3y agoI mean is it perfect? No. Are there better solutions and practices? Yes. But is it crazy and is it gonna cause irreparable damage? It is not unless you’re very irresponsible as a consumer. Either way that’s just my opinion.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago2 years? Have you seen how long databases last in this industry? I worked at a place that had been rocking the same original NoSql precursor for at least 4 decades.
- local_crmdgeon 3y agoIngress? That's still kinda SQL. That old IBM one?
- tjalfi 3y agoWere they using IMS[0] or MUMPS[1]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Information_Management_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Information_Management_Sys... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoMUMPS. It's a lovely little company based out of Verona, WI that I actually wouldn't mind going back to if I ever move back to the States.
- therealdrag0 3y agoThe question isn’t “how long could a db be used if desired or left alone?”; the question is @how long does it take to migrate off if forced?”
- turtlebits 3y agoTime is money. A migration could easily require code changes + testing, which can add up. If you're a small business that has to outsource this, I could see the cost of migration costing more than their aggregate DB hosting costs so far.
- __s 3y agoI'd expect them to migrate mariadb to mysql in the backend eventually, offering a managed migration path for people who want to do it on their own time (ie not wait for an abrupt disruption at some random time in the next couple years) I don't know anything about this, but I'm near this on the postgres side of azure. On that end I've seen a couple transparent migrations & have been working on less transparent ones too (such as pg11 eol). This handling of mariadb casts a bad light on the db services as a whole that doesn't match what I've seen previously
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y agoAWS users might disagree. See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27988964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27988964
- whimsicalism 3y agoin 2025? sounds non-controversial to me
- Twirrim 3y agoEven on "slow enterprise" timescales, 2 years should be more than sufficient. Doubly so given whatever you're using MariaDB for you can almost certainly just use MySQL instead. It's not like you have to go use a fundamentally different database technology
- lotsoweiners 3y agoHope you’re not counting government in that. An org I worked for took over 3 years just to upgrade IBM MQ versions.
- PeterZaitsev 3y agoThink about liability here. I'd you are not supporting database and nor patching security holes in it it is very likely you can be hold responsible for security incidents. I think it is fair instances no longer operate though perhaps taking backup of the data before deletion would be good
- xyst 3y agoWhen you rely on “cloud”, this is just an inevitability. It’s nothing new at this point. MS is such a huge org, they can tank the bad PR. Save on hosting, support, and bandwidth costs of MariaDB. Ultimately saving much more in $$$. The only losers: the customers
- fatfingerd 3y agoIf Microsoft tried to do a similar schedule in announcing an OS EoL 2 years ahead there would be pitchforks, but renters don't have rights.
- philistine 3y agoExactly. Imagine the uproar if they announced Windows 10 was out of updates at the end of this year instead of 2025.
- squigz 3y agoAnd then people would just buy the next version of Windows