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

Gitlab was down

status.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Gitlab was down

#91

Post by caseymarquis »

kungtotte wrote: post #73
jlengrand wrote: post #66

I used to be a total Gitlab fanboy. I was going to Sid's meetups back in Utrecht 6 years ago, and he's a model of mine to this time. I would have done anything to stay on the platform, for at home and the office and setup gitlab instances in two different offices. Since somewhere last year, I moved back to Github primarily, and I'm sad to hear that my company is likely to make the same choice soon.The only reason is…

Whenever GitHub is down you see comments saying much the same thing only with the names reversed. The thing that strikes me each time is how fragile everyone's setup is if GitHub/lab is a single point of failure for them... At least gitlab let's you self host, which would let you run backups on offsite hosting meaning zero downtime.

Given git's distributed nature, I can't imagine either service going down for a day could have that enormous of an impact. I'd be curious to know how people manage that. I would think other services which point to git.* would largely have some option for a manual work around, or would not be utilized in mission critical roles.

Re: Gitlab was down

#92

Post by yreg »

ramchip wrote: post #83
kungtotte wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever GitHub is down you see comments saying much the same thing only with the names reversed. The thing that strikes me each time is how fragile everyone's setup is if GitHub/lab is a single point of failure for them... At least gitlab let's you self host, which would let you run backups on offsite hosting meaning zero downtime.

Github also supports self-hosting.

Yes, https://github.com/enterprise

Re: Gitlab was down

#93

Post by oefrha »

1337shadow wrote: post #87
oefrha wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have blazing fast performance Sorry, but GitLab has never been blazing fast. The gitlab.com instance is notoriously slow — supposedly improved a lot over the past few years, but still feels pretty sluggish. My self-hosted instance isn’t much better. In fact, a couple of open source maintainer friends looked into migrating to GitLab when GitHub was acquired by MS; they did not precisely because GitLab was too slow.

Let me clarify: git clone/fetch/push on gitlab.com or github.com is sluggish, but on my private instances it's blazing fast, because I get great and un-metered bandwidth from my dedicated servers which might not be the case for everybody / every country. Another thing: CI starts the very second I push, and since I configure dedicated runners extremely well GitLab makes it easy keep every pipeline stage under 5 minute…

> pushing to gitlab prints out the URL to create a pull request from that branch, or to view the existing one, also a time saver that's not available on github

IIRC I’ve seen that recently with GitHub too. Not very useful to me though since I use magit for almost all git-related operations.

Re: Gitlab was down

#94

Post by pgt »

caseymarquis wrote: post #91
kungtotte wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever GitHub is down you see comments saying much the same thing only with the names reversed. The thing that strikes me each time is how fragile everyone's setup is if GitHub/lab is a single point of failure for them... At least gitlab let's you self host, which would let you run backups on offsite hosting meaning zero downtime.

Given git's distributed nature, I can't imagine either service going down for a day could have that enormous of an impact. I'd be curious to know how people manage that. I would think other services which point to git.* would largely have some option for a manual work around, or would not be utilized in mission critical roles.

Continuous integration is typically not distributed, and it blocks releases.

Re: Gitlab was down

#95

Post by frutiger »

kungtotte wrote: post #73
jlengrand wrote: post #66

I used to be a total Gitlab fanboy. I was going to Sid's meetups back in Utrecht 6 years ago, and he's a model of mine to this time. I would have done anything to stay on the platform, for at home and the office and setup gitlab instances in two different offices. Since somewhere last year, I moved back to Github primarily, and I'm sad to hear that my company is likely to make the same choice soon.The only reason is…

Whenever GitHub is down you see comments saying much the same thing only with the names reversed. The thing that strikes me each time is how fragile everyone's setup is if GitHub/lab is a single point of failure for them... At least gitlab let's you self host, which would let you run backups on offsite hosting meaning zero downtime.

GitHub also lets you self-host.

Re: Gitlab was down

#96

Post by edejong »

caseymarquis wrote: post #91
kungtotte wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever GitHub is down you see comments saying much the same thing only with the names reversed. The thing that strikes me each time is how fragile everyone's setup is if GitHub/lab is a single point of failure for them... At least gitlab let's you self host, which would let you run backups on offsite hosting meaning zero downtime.

Given git's distributed nature, I can't imagine either service going down for a day could have that enormous of an impact. I'd be curious to know how people manage that. I would think other services which point to git.* would largely have some option for a manual work around, or would not be utilized in mission critical roles.

But git is not truly distributed. Each 'node' in the network does not automatically gets access to new trusted nodes (remotes). Management of the distributed nature is still manual, meaning that your CI/CD system cannot suddenly pull changes from your local developer machine, instead of GitHub/GitLab/Gerrit/...

In an ideal world, each commit is cryptographically signed and automatically distributed to a large number of nodes. Only correctly signed commits would be picked up by CI/CD and the build artifacts would use the digital signature of the code to further deploy the resources in a trustworthy manner.

Re: Gitlab was down

#97

Post by jlengrand »

lima wrote: post #89
jlengrand wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, nobody's perfect. My experience with github is much better though on average. Haven't had a single bad experience personally the past year for my personal stuff. Not once. Github does only one thing, the CI is usually somewhere else so there have less reasons to fail as well... It might be comparing apples and oranges. We use Gitlab at the office and it is constantly slow. Might be our setup I agree, but in t…

>Github does only one thing, the CI is usually somewhere else so there have less reasons to fail as well... It might be comparing apples and oranges. This is changing with Github Actions.

> This is changing with Github Actions.

Well gitlab does artifactory/docker management, security, value stream management, . . . So still

Re: Gitlab was down

#98

Post by jlengrand »

ramchip wrote: post #83
kungtotte wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever GitHub is down you see comments saying much the same thing only with the names reversed. The thing that strikes me each time is how fragile everyone's setup is if GitHub/lab is a single point of failure for them... At least gitlab let's you self host, which would let you run backups on offsite hosting meaning zero downtime.

Github also supports self-hosting.

Sure, it is unfortunately above the monthly budget that my wife allows me to spend :)

Re: Gitlab was down

#99

Post by manigandham »

caseymarquis wrote: post #91
kungtotte wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever GitHub is down you see comments saying much the same thing only with the names reversed. The thing that strikes me each time is how fragile everyone's setup is if GitHub/lab is a single point of failure for them... At least gitlab let's you self host, which would let you run backups on offsite hosting meaning zero downtime.

Given git's distributed nature, I can't imagine either service going down for a day could have that enormous of an impact. I'd be curious to know how people manage that. I would think other services which point to git.* would largely have some option for a manual work around, or would not be utilized in mission critical roles.

Its mostly about the project management, issue tracking, pull requests, CI/CD, releases and other features being unavailable. Not the source code itself.

Re: Gitlab was down

#100

Post by scaryclam »

Dayshine wrote: post #49
greens231 wrote: post #46

Originally joined gitlab for their free private repos but with the recent downtime/sluggishness, i have jumped over to github (now that they offer free private repos too)

Gitlab is still the only viable choice for non-commercial groups who want private repos though, the 3 private members and no ability to have mixtures of public/private repos in organisations on Github is very limiting.

Sorry, but this isn't true at all. Bitbucket works fine, and GitHub offers plans for non-profit groups for free: https://github.com/nonprofit

Self-hosting has multiple different options as well.

Post reply on HN