Live data from Hacker News

GitHub down

status.github.com

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: GitHub down

#21

Do we really need a new thread every time GH is down for 5 minutes? Also, please use GitLab.

The last time GitHub went down was in January and it was over two hours.

What prevents GitLab from going down like GitHub?

Update: Yeah, maybe if we run an own GitLab instance in our corporate network.

Update update: Hmm, there seem to be outages in February, March and April, too. Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11736331

Re: GitHub down

#22

Do we really need a new thread every time GH is down for 5 minutes? Also, please use GitLab.

Any Git hosting provider as large as GH is also likely to go down once in a while. The bigger your scale is the more difficult it is to get nines.

Re: GitHub down

#23

Do we really need a new thread every time GH is down for 5 minutes? Also, please use GitLab.

well, a lot of people's work is reliant on it, so i'd say it's a pretty important thing.

> Also, please use GitLab.

and you can't just say "use xyz".

Re: GitHub down

#25
post #18
post #3

I have the feeling that this is happening more and more these days. And it's a mayor problem when a large part of your infrastructure is depending on services like Github (composer, etc.)

It's kind of ironic when one realizes that one of the major design goals of git was to be distributed, to reduce dependency on a single point of failure.

GitHub isn't really a single point of failure. You could easily keep working on your branches and/or forks and re-sync once the server is back up.

Re: GitHub down

#26
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://status.github.com/graphs/past_month Past Month: APP SERVER AVAILABILITY 99.1701%

Being down for the equivalent of 3 days/year isn't great.

you are extrapolating from the one month with down time. there wasn't any last month, or the month before that.

Re: GitHub down

#29
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of ironic when one realizes that one of the major design goals of git was to be distributed, to reduce dependency on a single point of failure.

GitHub isn't really a single point of failure. You could easily keep working on your branches and/or forks and re-sync once the server is back up.

That's definitely true, but PRs, comments and bug reports are not distributed, nor are many bridges between Github and external tools (issue trackers like JIRA/Trello, build-servers). This might seem pedantic, but it creates an asymmetry: commits and branches distributed, as opposed to PRs and comments.

Re: GitHub down

#30
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub isn't really a single point of failure. You could easily keep working on your branches and/or forks and re-sync once the server is back up.

That's definitely true, but PRs, comments and bug reports are not distributed, nor are many bridges between Github and external tools (issue trackers like JIRA/Trello, build-servers). This might seem pedantic, but it creates an asymmetry: commits and branches distributed, as opposed to PRs and comments.

Fossil[1] is a distributed scm with a distributed bug tracker, and distributed wiki.

[1] https://www.fossil-scm.org

Post reply on HN