61–70 of 74 posts
I really need to start monitoring GitHub vrs Bitbucket for uptime. I can't think of the last time Bitbucket was down.
Mostly Bitbucket has moments where it seems a little slugish and a pull or push takes what seems like forever.
Coincidentally, I just finished setting up Gitlab and Gitlab CI on a private server. If I could set up repo mirroring between it and Github, it would add a layer of protection for getting critical work done (security by distribution?).
Just have both gitlab and github as upstreams and push to both every time. aka in your .git/config: [remote "origin"] url = https://github.com/somerepo.git url = https://gitlab.yourdomain.tld/somerepo.git fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* And nothing to worry about when github is down.
What happens if the repos aren't in sync and you pull?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was down a few weeks ago, right in the middle of the last big deploy I did. Just had to laugh honestly.
That was scheduled maintenance, however. They had big banners with warnings everywhere on Bitbucket for several days before the event.
http://sysadmincasts.com/episodes/11-internal-git-server-wit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a reason there are controls to allow you to upvote, or downvote stories. If you don't like a story, and have nothing to contribute to the story, downvote it. If the story is in the top few, it's because people (that aren't you) are interested in knowing that github is getting attacked. EVERYTHING is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Edit: Heh, there are no downvotes on HN for stories. My bad.
> If you don't like a story, and have nothing to contribute to the story, downvote it. You should try doing this because I don't think it actually exists. I do understand why the hackernews crowd is interested in the status of github. What I don't understand is why those same people don't know about status.github.com and @githubstatus already. If github is a critical piece of your infrastructure, add a couple of book…
To your other points though, Github being DDoSed is something I would like to know about, but does not happen so frequently that I should bookmark the status page and check it every hour to see if someone is DDoSing them. That's rather absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I manage newgrounds.com which gets quite a bit of traffic. We'll get what I think are DDoS attacks at least once a month. I can see our connection tracking stats go up to the millions and traffic spikes way up of course. I don't know WHY they do this, but last time it happened we got an abuse report saying that we were reported for port scanning from our main firewall / proxy box. Somehow they had reflected traffic o…
> I don't know WHY they do this, but last time it happened we got an abuse report saying that we were reported for port scanning from our main firewall / proxy box. Somehow they had reflected traffic off our firewall / proxy to make it try to connect to a bunch of IPs on a known trojan port. How did you solve it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I manage newgrounds.com which gets quite a bit of traffic. We'll get what I think are DDoS attacks at least once a month. I can see our connection tracking stats go up to the millions and traffic spikes way up of course. I don't know WHY they do this, but last time it happened we got an abuse report saying that we were reported for port scanning from our main firewall / proxy box. Somehow they had reflected traffic o…
They wouldn't necessarily have received useful data from it. Consider what happens if you spoof the sender IP and port in the first packet of a TCP handshake: the recipient will send a response to the spoofed IP, making it look like they are the bad guys. Someone isn't filtering Martians properly, or those spoofed packets would have been filtered before they reached you.
I'm filtering martians/bogons, which I see getting blocked constantly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't like a story, and have nothing to contribute to the story, downvote it. You should try doing this because I don't think it actually exists. I do understand why the hackernews crowd is interested in the status of github. What I don't understand is why those same people don't know about status.github.com and @githubstatus already. If github is a critical piece of your infrastructure, add a couple of book…
Good point on the existence of the down vote functionality, I've amended my comment above. To your other points though, Github being DDoSed is something I would like to know about, but does not happen so frequently that I should bookmark the status page and check it every hour to see if someone is DDoSing them. That's rather absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just have both gitlab and github as upstreams and push to both every time. aka in your .git/config: [remote "origin"] url = https://github.com/somerepo.git url = https://gitlab.yourdomain.tld/somerepo.git fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* And nothing to worry about when github is down.
Huh. I wasn't aware you could do that. What happens if the repos aren't in sync and you pull?
Edit: curiosity got the better of me https://gist.github.com/mitchty/0c2089445c1400d46cb9
Basically exactly what you'd think.