By linking Aphyr's Redis article "call me maybe, Redis" as an example of possible troubles with new technologies, the author of this article shows that he actua

By linking Aphyr's Redis article "call me maybe, Redis" as an example of possible troubles with new technologies, the author of this article shows that he actually does not understand very well the failure modes of MySQL itself, which are identical to the ones of Redis failover (and of every other master-slave system with asynchronous replication, more or less). This in theory contradicts the whole article, but actually I think the idea happens to be reasonable, but formulated not very well. The point is not what is new and what is old, is to switch to new technologies without a good reason which is a useless risk. If you analyze the failure modes, and the strenghts, of what you used in the past, and there is something new that performs much better, IF you are a good programmer, you can analyze, and test for a few days, read the doc, check some code, of something new, and understand if it is a better fit. This is why it's always the set of the best programmers that adopt new technologies that later turn into the next "obvious" stack, they are brave, not because they are crazy, because they can analyze something regardless of the fact is new or old.