Comment by simoncion

Comment by simoncion 10 months ago

> I don't think you'd have to consider migration all the data from Pivotal...

I do. You might not have demands to migrate all data from all of your potential customers, but far, far more people than you might expect treat their issue tracking system as a system of record and external memory for a HUGE assortment of things.

One hugely (and obviously) useful query chain that such a system answers is "Hey, this customer problem sounds familiar. Did we investigate it before? Did we solve it? If so, how? If not, why not?". For long-running projects, it is impossible to select the correct 10% of data to retain to also retain the ability to reliably -er- service those query chains.

diggan 10 months ago

Obviously I meant 10% of all customers would hypothetically migrate from Pivotal to this new imaginary service, not that 10% of the data from each customer would be migrated... So 100% of the data migrated from 10% of the Pivotal user base, pretty generous assumptions I think.

Reply View 10 replies

simoncion 10 months ago

> Obviously I meant...
Respectfully: if it was obvious, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion I did and written up what I wrote.
> So 100% of the data migrated from 10% of the Pivotal user base...
Yeah, maybe. I don't know how large the slice of the Pivotal Tracker userbase you'd be able to retain even if you had a perfect clone. I bet it would be notably larger than you imagine it would be... it's my understanding that it has some pretty rabid fans that used it.

Reply View | 9 replies
- diggan 10 months ago
  
  > Respectfully: if it was obvious, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion I did and written up what I wrote.
  Sorry about that, I think I assumed some familiarity with moving data around/migrations, and moving 10% of a customers data around from a legacy service to new service wouldn't make much sense in that context.
  > I bet it would be notably larger than you imagine it would be
  I think being able to capture 10% of existing users is already a very large guess, realistically it would be closer to 1%.
  But, without any numbers from Pivotal and actually trying to launch a cloned service, all we can do is guess :)
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  simoncion 10 months ago
  
  > ...I think I assumed some familiarity with moving data around/migrations...
  I am familiar with this sort of thing, yes.
  I'm also professionally familiar with people who seem to think that it's totally acceptable to obligate folks to throw away large fractions of their valuable historical data in the name of cost savings. "Surely you can identify the most valuable 10% of your data!" they say.
  Given that I don't know you and what you know, and given that I've encountered a shockingly high number of these fools with a fetish for data destruction, I chose to expect the worst from your somewhat-ambiguous statement... which would ensure that at least one of us learned something, regardless of the truth of the situation.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
- Aeolun 10 months ago
  
  > Respectfully: if it was obvious, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion I did and written up what I wrote.
  I dunno, that felt obvious to me. Both the idea that you’d somehow manage to get all customers to migrate to your new service, as well as that they’d migrate only 10% of their data sound preposterous.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  simoncion 10 months ago
  
  > ...as well as that they’d migrate only 10% of their data sound preposterous.
  Ah, I might be unduly affected by some big data (not Big Data, mind you) migrations that I'm currently involved in, where the Powers That Be are telling us that we have to throw away a huge fraction of our historical data. Well, that and the many times we've had to fight beancounters who popped on by to demand we save the company what amounts to pocket change by throwing away tons of historical data.
  (It's flabbergasting how beancounters tend to ignore the price of programmer time when making their cost-cutting spreadsheets.)
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  DangitBobby 10 months ago
  
  How about they migrate they easy 98% of data and ignore the hard, large, expensive, etc 2%? Does that sound preposterous?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies