[draga79]

Not an abuse at all. I've a contract with those clients, and I can move the VMs, change the services, etc. freely as long as it doesn't cost more than the amount we've previously set.

Otherwise, I'd never dare to do something like that.

[viraptor]

It's still something that's weird to do without notifying the customers. What if things were slower? What if bsd introduced some slight change in behaviour that messed up their data but they didn't know when/why things changed? Full control doesn't mean unexpected YOLO changes are welcome.

[draga79]

As specified in several parts, the tests were conducted while maintaining and using BSD-based infrastructures for over 20 years. In some cases, Linux was used for various reasons (commercial, ideological, because they were inherited infrastructures managed by others, etc.), but the results were anticipated. I did not expect a performance degradation, and in any case, having set up the systems in a mirrored environment, there was always the possibility to revert in a few minutes.

[viraptor]

Maybe it was all done properly. I hope so. But the post really doesn't show that which I guess is what a few people here notice. You can't say you tested something for today for over 20 years. Things change - if it wasn't tested for that specific migration for that specific customer, then it wasn't really tested. I see people doing yolo changes that way and thought it's worth mentioning explicitly.

[blueflow]

If it is infrastructure that is critical to your company, you do not want your hoster to run experiments on it.

Its also a legal nightmare for the hoster if something goes wrong.