Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Atlassian: We estimate the rebuilding effort to last for up to 2 more weeks

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 260 posts

Re: Atlassian: We estimate the rebuilding effort to last for up to 2 more weeks

#11

Post by lousken »

media-trivial wrote: post #5
api wrote: post #2

It's funny that they recently killed self-hosted Jira. If you'd self-hosted you'd be fine.

We're using the cloud version and we're fine too (no outage). What's your point? Are you claiming that self-hosted is never down? Or that self-hosted is more reliable? Because I doubt that. Difference is just that when self-hosted goes down, it doesn't end up in the news.

if my company would be part of the outage, the restoration part would only take 2 days (if we're counting all the data they have, not just jira/conf) but not 3 weeks

so selfhosting may still have certain upsides even with such outage

Re: Atlassian: We estimate the rebuilding effort to last for up to 2 more weeks

#12

Post by media-trivial »

rileymat2 wrote: post #7
media-trivial wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're using the cloud version and we're fine too (no outage). What's your point? Are you claiming that self-hosted is never down? Or that self-hosted is more reliable? Because I doubt that. Difference is just that when self-hosted goes down, it doesn't end up in the news.

I think there is a strange psychological trait that I have, and others may as well, where I am much more forgiving breaking my own stuff than having someone else do it.

People are more forgiving torwards themselves and their own folks, I can understand that. I'm just thinking it's important to make decisions based on facts. Some self-hosters walk around with this "my own basement is safer than Amazon datacenters" attitude and that's just not true (in most cases, I guess :D).

Re: Atlassian: We estimate the rebuilding effort to last for up to 2 more weeks

#15

Post by nolok »

api wrote: post #2

It's funny that they recently killed self-hosted Jira. If you'd self-hosted you'd be fine.

To be fair, Jira screams SaaS.

I don't want any of my company trapped on it, but if they were I'm sure as well not going to self host that spawn of hell.

Re: Atlassian: We estimate the rebuilding effort to last for up to 2 more weeks

#17

Post by omoikane »

media-trivial wrote: post #5
api wrote: post #2

It's funny that they recently killed self-hosted Jira. If you'd self-hosted you'd be fine.

We're using the cloud version and we're fine too (no outage). What's your point? Are you claiming that self-hosted is never down? Or that self-hosted is more reliable? Because I doubt that. Difference is just that when self-hosted goes down, it doesn't end up in the news.

One difference might be that when you self-host, you are more sensitive of some of the risks, whereas a hosting service might be balancing that risk with a need to scale, and their appetite for risk and tradeoff considerations might be different from yours. It might be that these companies know something that their customers don't, and thus are more willing to take on risks.

In this case, it seems like the company took a risk and it did not go well. The possibility of being able to restore from backups might have been factored into this risk, but the latency of doing so might not have been.

Re: Atlassian: We estimate the rebuilding effort to last for up to 2 more weeks

#18

Post by fisf »

media-trivial wrote: post #12
rileymat2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a strange psychological trait that I have, and others may as well, where I am much more forgiving breaking my own stuff than having someone else do it.

People are more forgiving torwards themselves and their own folks, I can understand that. I'm just thinking it's important to make decisions based on facts. Some self-hosters walk around with this "my own basement is safer than Amazon datacenters" attitude and that's just not true (in most cases, I guess :D).

No. The basic assumption is only, that if I pay somebody money for the service and to keep things running, then sudden data loss is unacceptable (and a multi week downtime even more so).

Some companies cannot operate effectively without atlassian products, so a fuckup of that scale might just have legal consequences depending on whom it hits.

Re: Atlassian: We estimate the rebuilding effort to last for up to 2 more weeks

#19

Post by msla »

nolok wrote: post #15
api wrote: post #2

It's funny that they recently killed self-hosted Jira. If you'd self-hosted you'd be fine.

To be fair, Jira screams SaaS. I don't want any of my company trapped on it, but if they were I'm sure as well not going to self host that spawn of hell.

Self-hosting Jira is running a big Java application that has its own directory structure and talks to a Postgres database. It really isn't hard. Even upgrades are automated using shell scripts, although you do need to manually replace some configuration files afterwords for some damn reason. Configuring Jira is complicated, but that's the same regardless of whether you self-host.

Re: Atlassian: We estimate the rebuilding effort to last for up to 2 more weeks

#20

Post by kodah »

rileymat2 wrote: post #7
media-trivial wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're using the cloud version and we're fine too (no outage). What's your point? Are you claiming that self-hosted is never down? Or that self-hosted is more reliable? Because I doubt that. Difference is just that when self-hosted goes down, it doesn't end up in the news.

I think there is a strange psychological trait that I have, and others may as well, where I am much more forgiving breaking my own stuff than having someone else do it.

When you host Jira yourself, the monthly subscription pays for Software + Software updates. When Atlassian hosts it for you, you're paying for Software + Software Updates + Service (hosting). When you hosted yourself, a team gets blasted for not monitoring it or updating it correctly. When Atlassian fails to do it (and charges for it) then they get the heat.

All that to say, I don't think it's a weird phenomenon, it's just you're realizing that you're paying someone else for something that's not delivered on.

Post reply on HN