5 ms·

How 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 ago
In 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 ago
  in 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 ago
    There 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 ago
  If 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?
  - amtamt 3y ago
    Who knows if one would still be working in this project/ team/ company? Nobody gets good raise/ promotion for maintenace or migration work. Some pat on the back... May be.
    - yawaramin 3y ago
      If it's not going to be your problem in two years, then why would you complain about it?
- djoletina 3y ago
  I 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 ago
2 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 ago
  Ingress? That's still kinda SQL. That old IBM one?
- tjalfi 3y ago
  Were 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 ago
    MUMPS. 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Time 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 ago
I'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 ago
AWS users might disagree. See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27988964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27988964

arrakeenrevived 3y ago

In 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 ago
in 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 ago
  There 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 ago
If 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?
- amtamt 3y ago
  Who knows if one would still be working in this project/ team/ company? Nobody gets good raise/ promotion for maintenace or migration work. Some pat on the back... May be.
  - yawaramin 3y ago
    If it's not going to be your problem in two years, then why would you complain about it?
djoletina 3y ago
I 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 ago

2 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 ago
Ingress? That's still kinda SQL. That old IBM one?
tjalfi 3y ago
Were 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 ago
  MUMPS. 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Time 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 ago

I'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 ago

AWS users might disagree. See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27988964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27988964