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

GitHub was down

status.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: GitHub was down

#121

Post by creshal »

moooo99 wrote: post #100
dt3ft wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would choose self-hosting for small to medium size teams any day. I can't fathom why people choose not to self-host at this scale. Your data. Your control. Your network. Your infrastructure. Your responsibility. Are people becoming more afraid of responsibility these days?

> Are people becoming more afraid of responsibility these days? I wound't say people become more afraid, they just don't see the reason to bother. I'd choose GitHub or Gitlab for small teams at any time. I'd probably even be fine with the free versions. I see little to no reason for self-hosting in a small team. I cannot imagine a performant server, bandwith and the employee it takes to maintain it to be cheaper than…

> I cannot imagine a performant server, bandwith and the employee it takes to maintain it to be cheaper than the 10€/month/user for a hosted solution.

Gitlab and gitea don't have that high performance requirements, especially when you consider how absurdly cheap high-core-count CPUs, RAM and NVMe SSDs are these days… and that's assuming you don't just chuck it into your existing cloud infrastructure and call it a day.

But even self-hosted redundant gitlab setups for several hundred users can be done with cheap commodity servers (or dedicated hosting providers like Hetzner) for <5€/user/month, and maintenance is on the order of 1-2 hours per month.

Re: GitHub was down

#122

Post by justincormack »

jaekash wrote: post #88
trulyrandom wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self hosting GitHub is an option as well. We've been self hosting GitHub Enterprise for years and it has had no downtime other than during scheduled updates (at night, when nobody's at work).

> We've been self hosting GitHub Enterprise for years and it has had no downtime other than during scheduled updates (at night, when nobody's at work). Is it free to self host like GitLab or Gitea? If not, what does it offer that you can't get from those?

No it is not free, it is GitHub's main source of revenue.

Re: GitHub was down

#123

Post by reificator »

joelhaasnoot wrote: post #105
jaekash wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've been self hosting GitHub Enterprise for years and it has had no downtime other than during scheduled updates (at night, when nobody's at work). Is it free to self host like GitLab or Gitea? If not, what does it offer that you can't get from those?

On-premise or own-cloud hosting is quite import for some customers.

> > Is it free to self host like GitLab or Gitea? If not, what does it offer that you can't get from those?

> On-premise or own-cloud hosting is quite import for some customers.

Yes... it is quite important- That's why people use things like Gitlab or Gitea....

But back to the original question, what does Github Enterprise offer that you can't get from Gitlab or Gitea?

Re: GitHub was down

#124

Post by koonsolo »

gregoriol wrote: post #32
rvz wrote: post #13

14 Days ago, they went down [0]. And today it's happening again. Twice in less than a month. Another reminder to self host via solutions like GitLab or Gitea. [1] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23675864 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23676072

Could you provide details on how you plan to be more reliable with a self-hosted solution? what kind of archtecture would you use? how many people will be involved in maintaining?

This is an issue I see at a lot of companies make, even going further than self-hosting. For example replacing off the shelf software with an internal product.

"This is not good, we have to do this ourselves". And in the end it costs way more, and you end up with an inferiour solution because it's not your core business, and nobody really has any time to work on it.

Very sad really.

The first thing to ask is exactly what you asked here. I can't upvote this enough.

Re: GitHub was down

#125

Post by echelon »

jaekash wrote: post #115
echelon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are you not using an alternative? I don't need two CI/CD pipelines. Nor do I have have time to build something like that. I need to spend my time working on the core product. The risk here is that my deploy SLA is tied to Github. I accepted this risk as the cadence of my deploys tends to be once to twice a day on average and Github is usually available (many nines). I made a choice, and now that choice is bitin…

> I don't need two CI/CD pipelines. Maybe my question was unclear, but I was not asking why are no not using two services, I was asking why are you not using an alternative, and I meant instead of GitHub, not in addition to GitHub. > If this is the last of it and Microsoft makes a commitment to not break things, I'll likely stay as the effort to move is nonzero. Commitment without liability is not a commitment. It is…

> why are no not using two services

Simplicity. Microsoft has a marketplace where they bundle a bunch of services together where developers already are. I didn't have to go elsewhere to look. It's a real competitive advantage they're building. That said, I may begin to look elsewhere.

> And I don't see Microsoft making any commitments with liability on their part for a free service

It's not a free service. I pay roughly $50/mo for the features I use.

> And I don't see Microsoft making any commitments with liability on their part for a free service.

I imagine they take their SLAs very seriously. Especially in light of this string of outages. If they don't, they're going to lose customers and good will.

Re: GitHub was down

#126

Post by xtracto »

quyleanh wrote: post #77
jaekash wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know if you use Microsoft products every day, and every day they let you down, and every day you experience the worst most unintuitive design in the world, and every day you have to deal with their reliability issues, and then MS acquires github, and github starts to behave like everything else MS touches ... Clearly something about how MS runs is responsible for their past outcomes, why is it a stretch to assume…

It's just your own feelings. I haven't had any issue with Microsoft products (and yes I use their services every day in my working life). All I can see from you is making a guess with your full of sentiments and negative thoughts. So as I said, don't blame them until official statement.

> I haven't had any issue with Microsoft products

How old are you? Where you using tech during the Win95 times? BSODs, office dying on you (Norton crashward anyone?) , plug and pray? Hotmail eating all your mail without a warning, Internet Explorer malware, NetBios worm (which infected your pc as soon after you installed windows) and oooh so many more.

There is data about this, which makes it more than pure anecdotes.

Re: GitHub was down

#127

Post by ashildr »

gregoriol wrote: post #45
gregoriol wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you provide details on how you plan to be more reliable with a self-hosted solution? what kind of archtecture would you use? how many people will be involved in maintaining?

It's not that I'm against, the contrary, but in the last months I've experienced a physical server crash, a random kernel panic and a failed upgrade of GitLab: that all took 10/20 hours of work, didn't result in any data loss, but the downtime was clearly higher than what GitHub has (+ nobody on the team was on holidays at that moment), plus any maintenance like software or system upgrades has to be done outside team…

A failed upgrade of GitLab? Can you give details - I got used to monthly Gitlab updates going very smoothly and now I’m a little afraid. What went wrong?

Re: GitHub was down

#128

Post by jaekash »

echelon wrote: post #125
jaekash wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't need two CI/CD pipelines. Maybe my question was unclear, but I was not asking why are no not using two services, I was asking why are you not using an alternative, and I meant instead of GitHub, not in addition to GitHub. > If this is the last of it and Microsoft makes a commitment to not break things, I'll likely stay as the effort to move is nonzero. Commitment without liability is not a commitment. It is…

> why are no not using two services Simplicity. Microsoft has a marketplace where they bundle a bunch of services together where developers already are. I didn't have to go elsewhere to look. It's a real competitive advantage they're building. That said, I may begin to look elsewhere. > And I don't see Microsoft making any commitments with liability on their part for a free service It's not a free service. I pay roug…

> I imagine they take their SLAs very seriously.

What are the liabilities on them for failing to meet their SLA? Taking thing seriously is not a liability. Specifically in this case, what are their liability to you?

Re: GitHub was down

#129

Post by gregoriol »

ashildr wrote: post #127
gregoriol wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that I'm against, the contrary, but in the last months I've experienced a physical server crash, a random kernel panic and a failed upgrade of GitLab: that all took 10/20 hours of work, didn't result in any data loss, but the downtime was clearly higher than what GitHub has (+ nobody on the team was on holidays at that moment), plus any maintenance like software or system upgrades has to be done outside team…

A failed upgrade of GitLab? Can you give details - I got used to monthly Gitlab updates going very smoothly and now I’m a little afraid. What went wrong?

Last one we had was because the ssh connection was lost during the apt upgrade (gitlab omnibus ce).

Another one I remember was when some new configuration key was needed and prevented one of the components from starting (took ~2 hours to find what it was).

It doesn't happen often, don't worry that much though, gitlab omnibus works well, but is hard to investigate/fix because it's huge and not a tech stack we do understand well since we mostly use gitlab-ctl commands, so when something goes wrong it's hard

Post reply on HN