InfluxDB Cloud shuts down in Belgium; some weren't notified before data deletion

Deprecation of services is a common occurrence at AWS and many other tech companies. But it's never taken lightly. A mandatory step in this process is analyzing usage logs. We need to ensure customers have transitioned to the alternative. If they haven't, we reach out. We understand why. The idea of simply "nuking" customer data without a viable alternative is unthinkable.

The InfluxDB incident brings to light the ongoing debate around soft vs. hard deletion. It's unacceptable for a hard delete to be the first step in any deprecation process. A clear escalation process is necessary: notify the customer, wait for explicit acknowledgement, disable their APIs for a short period, extend this period if necessary, soft delete for a certain period, notify again, and only then consider a hard delete.

The so-called ["scream test"](https://www.v-wiki.net/scream-test-meaning/) is not a viable strategy for a cloud service provider. Proactive communication and customer engagement are key.

This incident is a wake-up call. It underscores the importance of data durability and effective, respectful customer communication in cloud services and platform teams. Communication is more than three cover-your-ass emails; it's caring about your customers.

The CTO seems to have been checked out for a long time (just look at how little developer engagement there is on here) and the CEO seems to have no idea how to run a DBaaS. The fact that nobody else from the company has stepped in to try and defuse this should terrify anyone who has data on InfluxData's cloud.

This is the beginning of the end. It seems like all of the good people have left the company, and being willing to destroy credibility to cut costs is a clear sign that the company is running on fumes.

So, now is the time - find your alternative, whether it's Timescale, QuestDB, VictoriaMetrics, ClickHouse, or just self-hosting.

I got what you and others are saying but I've been trying - and failing, apparently - to point out that the costs for a mortgage in case of a sale are born by the buyers who are not even the same kind of institutions as the parties that sell them, and so they are in no position to charge the subjects, nor are the sellers going to price the mortgages any higher in the future because the costs aren't born by them.

There is no such thing as 'projected profits' that go into this because mortgages can be sold (and are sold) more than once, the number of times is not known when they are issued first. And it is going to be only a small fraction of the audience that is going to be hard to reach for whatever reason. The presumption that there is some kind of free market mechanism that will ultimately pass those costs back to the original mortgage underwriters is not in any way evidenced by present day mortgage prices. On the sum total of mortgages out there and the - exorbitant - profits they create for the lenders we're talking about such small amounts that it will make zero difference.

A 'significant increase in communications costs' would translate into that being something that is some noticeable percentage of the total yield over the remaining time and it just simply isn't. Typical mortgage rates and amounts utterly dwarf the costs of a one time notification, especially if you don't have to notify everybody like that, and you can try cheaper channels first until you have a hit. Besides, the original mortgage 'service charge' is already a large multiple of the various costs and tends to be mostly pure profit for the initial lender.

It seems odd that you [seem to] think that mortgages are priced such that the mere cost of communications is going to show up in the prices, they are amongst the most profitable financial products.