Are cloud performances expected to be improved ... now?

Question

Hi all,

I'm not that happy with the message in my mailbox today.

We were extremely happy with our Confluence and Jira server installation.

We were already getting benefits from the cloud, as we were installing our instance on AWS cloud. It's a cost, but works well and it's very fast. Working with this configurations it's simply natural.

I've started to make some experiments with Confluence and Jira cloud  (as we'll have to move everyhting there. in a couple of years ...), and everything seems far slower than what I'm used to, to the point that I'm scared to propose to my users to start practicing this new way.

I'm not comparing a "local" usage experience with a cloud based, as also our server installation is installed already on a cloud server (AWS), and not on a local machine.

I have users that work continuously with Confluence and Jira.

I'm really scared of this.

Am I the only one with this bad experience so far?

Ciao, Andrea

ABoerio · Answer

HI @Vincent DEBOSSE  I guess that what they are stopping is the issue of new server licenses, and not canceling the existing ones.

The main difference between the server and cloud licence, so far, was that the server licence had no expiration (it's not a subscription). When we pay, yearly, for the renewal it's meant to be renewal for the support and upgrade services, and not for the licence.

This was my understanding, and one of the reasons for we bought a server licence.

Of course if you'd need to increase the number of active users, you'd have a problem.

Ciao, Andrea.

Vincent DEBOSSE_22e9qs · Answer

Stopping development and support is one thing, but Server products come with a renewable license, so even if we can afford the loss of updates and support, we will still get stuck without a license at some point.

I for one do not care about losing support and updates. I have build my instance template around fixed versions of JIRA and Confluence, and this template is deployed on servers that have no outside network connectivity, using a good old usb stick. Attackers would have to be in the same room as the server to try and attack it.

So, for Atlassian, leave users with an option to run their server instances.

ABoerio · Answer

Hi @intona for us the main issue is not the location of the data, given that we're already using a cloud server. Or at least it wasn't a problem so far.

The real problem for us, at the moment is that we're facing a user experience which is really worse than what we were used to.

And I'm not talking about different menus, layout, reduced administration options or the need to review all our scripts, etc ... these are all aspects we can deal with, and I'm sure that there are new interesting functions available,  but I need users to not feel a slower application than what they were used to, because these are not application that they use occasionally.

For sure this decision is not making us simply thinking about how to deal with a forced migration to Atlassian Cloud, but also thinking about other software options on the market. It's the first think my boss asked me this morning ...  :-(

Obviosuly each developer has the right to stop developing and supporting a product, so I'm not blaming in principle on Atlassian's decision.

It's just a big problem for us, because we loved a lot Atlassian's server based software.