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

The August 17 outage

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 804 posts

Re: The August 17 outage

#11

Post by ivraatiems »

mort96 wrote: post #5
ivraatiems wrote: post #3

"We are committed to fixing these problems, as long as it doesn't involve buying things other than AI computers, hiring humans, or using non-Microsoft products." Calling Azure the solution to this problem when it is in fact the source of most of these problems is just fantastic doublespeak. Github is ripe for disruption and I hope it is disrupted soon.

If you're a big company, you can afford having one engineer spend one or two days per year to maintain your self-hosted GitLab or Forgejo. On top of better reliability than GitHub, you'll get the additional bonus that your source code won't accidentally leak through being in Copilot's training set. If you're a hobbyist, Codeberg is great, has a nice community and automatically shields you from slop contributions.

The issue with these systems is that they lack Github's sophistication for issue tracking, knowledge transfer, and automation. I think Gitlab is a mature product in its own space and unlikey to change, for instance, at this point.

Codeberg also has the issue of having a political stance which means they will not accept just anyone's use of the platform. That is absolutely their right and I have no issue with it, but it's unattractive to me - as someone who agrees with most of their current politics - because the day they decide they don't like me, I'm screwed.

Re: The August 17 outage

#13

Post by lenerdenator »

We need to have a package of FLOSsoftware that you could run on the cloud of your choice that offers most of what GitHub does (niceties on top of Git) without the centralization.

GitLab was close last I remember but there was some sort of enterprise tier when I tried hosting stuff on a local server years ago. I want true FLOSS, not another SaaS equivalent of the coke dealer giving clients the good uncut stuff when they're just starting out only to sell crap when they're addicted.

Re: The August 17 outage

#14

Post by ivraatiems »

dcrazy wrote: post #6
ivraatiems wrote: post #3

"We are committed to fixing these problems, as long as it doesn't involve buying things other than AI computers, hiring humans, or using non-Microsoft products." Calling Azure the solution to this problem when it is in fact the source of most of these problems is just fantastic doublespeak. Github is ripe for disruption and I hope it is disrupted soon.

> We installed as much hardware as available power allowed in our existing data centers while accelerating our migration to Azure. And from the RCA [1]: > The immediate cause of the failure was network saturation on load balancers in Central US due to a new peak in traffic. [1]: https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/zkxwbgr0cnmx

"While accelerating our migration to Azure," meaning, they will only solve problems if it helps them also use Azure more.

It is unbelivable that aload of 2.8b commits was totally fine, and a load of 2.9b was a sitewide outage, unless they have no reporting or their tooling is completely incompetent. If things can fall apart so easily, throwing more capacity at the problem won't fix it.

Re: The August 17 outage

#16

Post by dcrazy »

ivraatiems wrote: post #14
dcrazy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We installed as much hardware as available power allowed in our existing data centers while accelerating our migration to Azure. And from the RCA [1]: > The immediate cause of the failure was network saturation on load balancers in Central US due to a new peak in traffic. [1]: https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/zkxwbgr0cnmx

"While accelerating our migration to Azure," meaning, they will only solve problems if it helps them also use Azure more. It is unbelivable that aload of 2.8b commits was totally fine, and a load of 2.9b was a sitewide outage, unless they have no reporting or their tooling is completely incompetent. If things can fall apart so easily, throwing more capacity at the problem won't fix it.

You’re torturing your own logic to make Azure the villain here. And it also sounds like you lack experience with capacity exhaustion. Things fail slowly, then suddenly.

Re: The August 17 outage

#17

Post by cschep »

lenerdenator wrote: post #13

We need to have a package of FLOSsoftware that you could run on the cloud of your choice that offers most of what GitHub does (niceties on top of Git) without the centralization. GitLab was close last I remember but there was some sort of enterprise tier when I tried hosting stuff on a local server years ago. I want true FLOSS, not another SaaS equivalent of the coke dealer giving clients the good uncut stuff when th…

https://forgejo.org/ promises to be this, have only lightly used it on https://codeberg.org/ but it seems nice?

Re: The August 17 outage

#18

Post by ivraatiems »

dcrazy wrote: post #16
ivraatiems wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"While accelerating our migration to Azure," meaning, they will only solve problems if it helps them also use Azure more. It is unbelivable that aload of 2.8b commits was totally fine, and a load of 2.9b was a sitewide outage, unless they have no reporting or their tooling is completely incompetent. If things can fall apart so easily, throwing more capacity at the problem won't fix it.

You’re torturing your own logic to make Azure the villain here. And it also sounds like you lack experience with capacity exhaustion. Things fail slowly, then suddenly.

[flagged]

Re: The August 17 outage

#19

Post by awesome_dude »

ivraatiems wrote: post #3

"We are committed to fixing these problems, as long as it doesn't involve buying things other than AI computers, hiring humans, or using non-Microsoft products." Calling Azure the solution to this problem when it is in fact the source of most of these problems is just fantastic doublespeak. Github is ripe for disruption and I hope it is disrupted soon.

> Github is ripe for disruption and I hope it is disrupted soon.

It's an expensive, low revenue generating site.

There are, and have always been, competitors, including "host it all yourself" solutions, but nothing has really stuck.

How is it "ripe" for disruption?

Post reply on HN