3 ms·

Having worked for solutions providers for years that built such apps, it’s extremely hard to convince a customer who has built their business around that softwa

by junto 2y ago

Having worked for solutions providers for years that built such apps, it’s extremely hard to convince a customer who has built their business around that software to invest in a database upgrade, when the software still works and changing a running system adds risk. They just don’t want to pay for it.

tracker1 2y ago
What is the risk of losing all the DB data, transactions, etc for a given period of time. What is the loss to the business in terms of immediate productivity, long term recovery, reputation, legal repercussions even? I worked in an environment that spent half a million each on a few pieces of specialized hardware but difficulty convincing management to spend less than $100k to replace the 8yo, dated, slow database server now managing 8x the payload as when it was first deployed. It's sometimes exceedingly difficult to justify replacing something seen as "working fine"
JackSlateur 2y ago
"They just don't want to pay for it" : yes. And why would they ? SQL server supports compatibility level up to sql server 2005. So you can install SQL server and run your application without any change. What it is to pay, exactly ? There are two possible answers to that question, as far as I know: - the hosting provider is a greedy crap, who leverages "security reasons" to racket some extra money - somebody made the (bad) choice and setup multiple unrelated software on the same instance. Instances, just like containers, must follow the simple rule : one box = one app software. So maybe those people bundled together various software, and are now living in a compatibility nightmare where everybody is stuck ?
- junto 2y ago
  The only cost is paying for the developer’s time and the risk of disruption to the business. It’s often something that the client just doesn’t want to pay.
  - JackSlateur 2y ago
    As I said, ms sql have compatibility support for older version So there is no "developer's time" per se, you can just upgrade the database whilst keeping the exact same behaviors you had

by junto 2y ago

tracker1 2y ago

What is the risk of losing all the DB data, transactions, etc for a given period of time. What is the loss to the business in terms of immediate productivity, long term recovery, reputation, legal repercussions even? I worked in an environment that spent half a million each on a few pieces of specialized hardware but difficulty convincing management to spend less than $100k to replace the 8yo, dated, slow database server now managing 8x the payload as when it was first deployed. It's sometimes exceedingly difficult to justify replacing something seen as "working fine"

JackSlateur 2y ago

"They just don't want to pay for it" : yes. And why would they ? SQL server supports compatibility level up to sql server 2005. So you can install SQL server and run your application without any change. What it is to pay, exactly ? There are two possible answers to that question, as far as I know: - the hosting provider is a greedy crap, who leverages "security reasons" to racket some extra money - somebody made the (bad) choice and setup multiple unrelated software on the same instance. Instances, just like containers, must follow the simple rule : one box = one app software. So maybe those people bundled together various software, and are now living in a compatibility nightmare where everybody is stuck ?

junto 2y ago
The only cost is paying for the developer’s time and the risk of disruption to the business. It’s often something that the client just doesn’t want to pay.
- JackSlateur 2y ago
  As I said, ms sql have compatibility support for older version So there is no "developer's time" per se, you can just upgrade the database whilst keeping the exact same behaviors you had