Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub down

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: GitHub down

#191

Post by PurpleRamen »

kemitche wrote: post #176
Tobani wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further I think these are things that are generally harder to decentralize. I'm not sure how much marginal value there is doing so.

Yup. Half the comments in this thread are "oh you could do issues in git or something." No, when my PM asks me if bug 123 is fixed, I want a single source of truth. Whether that truth is GitHub, JIRA or something else, it's still a single point of failure.

Maybe the best way would be to put those wiki/issue/whatever-data in the repository itself and just build tools to throw at them. This could be github, gitlab or something local.

Re: GitHub down

#192

Post by jupblb »

majewsky wrote: post #151
jupblb wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I prefer something more lightweight and for some time I've been using gogs - https://github.com/gogits/gogs (so far so good)

Is gogs maintained anymore? Everyone I know switched to the community fork, gitea.

Wow, I haven't peeked at the commit history for some time. Thanks for the info!

Re: GitHub down

#193

Post by notheguyouthink »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #69
dom96 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is indeed the crux of the problem. I've been thinking about this a lot (and I wouldn't be surprised if it exists already), we need a decentralised method of storing issues and other things inside our git repos.

Also, the workflow on Github is one many people like, and it differs a bit if you have to use git "the old fashioned way". Not that it's hard or impossible, but it differs. I can't imagine explaining the GitHub-less workflow to my colleges..

\*colleague.

Re: GitHub down

#194

Post by sverhagen »

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #47
d4nyll wrote: post #17

Now the status page is updated, but the status on previous days are all saying "The status is still red at the beginning of the day"

I saw that, too, and was fairly concerned. A smoothly running, quality focused engineering organization doesn't leave a status page un-updated for 3+ weeks... Also, "reports of service unavailability"? I would expect monitoring tools to be screaming...

They had an outage happening a few days ago, and I happened to be looking at the status page. It appeared that days in the past were just showing the current status. It went orange, all days past went orange. I refreshed again, it went red, all days past went red.

Re: GitHub down

#195

Post by carlivar »

ben_jones wrote: post #153
carlivar wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time allocated for this used to be a given. It's interesting how quickly we have moved to SaaS. Though if your internal IT team had a VCS outage, it wouldn't be Hacker News news. Really it is just the scope of the outages (and commiseration) that has changed.

a) SaaS companies often have the resources / domain knowledge to provide a superior service to the self-hosted alternative b) Outages are inevitable and if you're using a SaaS you get to blame someone else for it (and sometimes it gets resolved quicker)

Yeah, merely an observation, not a criticism of SaaS.

However I do wonder sometimes, even with the resources and domain knowledge, if the super crazy scale these SaaS companies have to deal with tips the scales to be about the same reliability as a solid internal ops or IT team (who only have to worry about YOUR scale).

Re: GitHub down

#196

Post by scott_karana »

Self-hosted vs SaaS is not a binary decision, and I hate seeing it argued like that every time there's an outage.

What the hell happened to basic risk mitigation? Offsite backups, disaster procedures, etc aren't new, or unexpected. You'd think they should be the norm, if you're a working professional...

Re: GitHub down

#197

Post by MaxBarraclough »

apple4ever wrote: post #182
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be assuming that your self-hosted git will be more bullet-proof than GitHub. It probably won't be. You'll probably have fewer nines than they do; it's their business, after all. Even if your own solution had better uptime, you still haven't shown that it's worth it. GitHub is far more than just a git repo on a server.

First, yes it is more bullet-proof. We had 100% uptime last year with our GitLab. Second, it is completely worth it. GitLab is better than GitHub, so that definitely makes it worth it.

Interesting, maybe I've been too dismissive of GitLab.

Re: GitHub down

#198

Post by jeppz »

leeoniya wrote: post #49
jeppz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I didn't know, not everyone uses it on a daily basis.

so is it interesting for you to know that a service you don't use daily is down for a couple hours? this random github outage happens basically every other month, and is fixed in like 30 minutes. every time it's on HN frontpage. people who use Github will already know.

Yea ok I didn't know that either, I thought they were rather rare and worse than that.
Post reply on HN