Hacker News Reader

Comment by djoletina | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

If it's not going to be your problem in two years, then why would you complain about it?

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.

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.

Ingress? That's still kinda SQL.

That old IBM one?

Were they using IMS[0] or MUMPS[1]?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Information_Management_Sys...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS

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.

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?”

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.

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com