|
|
|
|
|
by tpolm
2004 days ago
|
|
it is interesting that is both cases (recent gmail and this one) it was a "migration": "As part of an ongoing migration of the User ID Service to a new quota system" "An ongoing migration was in effect to update this underlying
configuration system" it was not a new feature, not a massive hardware failure, it was migrating part of the working product due to some unclear reason of "best practices". both of those migrations failed with symptoms suggesting that whoever was performing them did not have deep understanding of systems architecture or safety practices and there was no one to stop them from failing. Signs of slow degradation of engineering culture at Google. There will be more to come. Sad. |
|
I want to push back on that. Of course, the reasons are unclear to an outsider.
Migrations are an unavoidable in any system that is still evolving (i.e. not dead). Old designs turn out to be too limited or too slow for an evolved use case, so you migrate them to a new service or a new data structure.
If you try to avoid migrations by building The Perfect Things[tm] upfront, you get lost in overengineering instead.
In my own work, I do migrations with some regularity, and they all have a clear goal, it's never what you call 'some unclear reason of "best practices"'.