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

Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

nimbleindustries.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 149 posts

Re: Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

#101

Post by danpalmer »

virtue3 wrote: post #99
danpalmer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my team our downtime is very closely correlated with how much we're working and changing the product. I'd be surprised if GitHub is much different.

exactly. Before M$ there wasn't much product movement at Github :/

I think they got out of the rut before Microsoft's involvement, but I suspect MS has allowed them to accelerate a lot of it with more investment and a more defined direction.

I've heard that for a number of years the Product org at GitHub essentially considered the product "finished", and that it did not need more features. Things like the rise of GitLab and the "Dear GitHub" letter, plus I believe a change of leadership, helped that completely turn around. Obviously that took time to yield benefits, so I think they've been in a much better place for quite a few years now.

Re: Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

#102

Post by ies7 »

blueflow wrote: post #50
echelon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (a bunch of comments about the UX redesign) I agree. I'll add one: README files with tables now require horizontal scrolling, and that's utterly disappointing. > The "explore" and "trending" functionality I do work in ML and computer vision, and this is how I discover all of the new models and code people are using. It's awesome. > Not sure about others, but i used GitHub as a git host and issue/MR tracker. All the…

Many of my projects have a fixed scope and thus are 'done' at some point. If you develop like this, CI/CD is rarely worth the effort. Its better suited for projects that suffer from scope creep or regular upstream breakages.

But before that ‘done’ point or maybe for a new project, Github Action is a good feature introduced by Microsoft.

Re: Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

#103

Post by Lammy »

syberspace wrote: post #92
stepbeek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, I really want to say we don't because of the implications of too centralised an internet, but there's no way it isn't a transitive dependency.

What the hell are you building that there has to be Cloudflare in the dependency tree at some point?

Any javascript CDN?

Re: Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

#104

Post by Lammy »

danpalmer wrote: post #101
virtue3 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

exactly. Before M$ there wasn't much product movement at Github :/

I think they got out of the rut before Microsoft's involvement, but I suspect MS has allowed them to accelerate a lot of it with more investment and a more defined direction. I've heard that for a number of years the Product org at GitHub essentially considered the product "finished", and that it did not need more features. Things like the rise of GitLab and the "Dear GitHub" letter, plus I believe a change of leader…

> and a more defined direction

Except for Atom :(

Re: Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

#106

Post by shaklee3 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #65
jillesvangurp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gold standard here is 5 9s, not 2. They have paying customers that are being inconvenienced by this. We lost time over this multiple times in the last few weeks. So, not good. IMHO they are having some major issues with their release process that they need to address. Standards have slipped there; they used to be better at this.

The numbers on Github Enterprise might be different. They probably roll out changes to the free/$4 per month Github first.

Isn't enterprise the self-hosted solution?

Re: Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

#107

Post by [deleted] »

srean wrote: post #80

Taking the numbers at their face value this is a good exercise in some text book statistical test of hypothesis. Incidents: Before 89. After 126. What is the chance of this happening if the 'rate' of occurrence has not changed ? Assuming an unknown but constant Poisson rate, we get the probability of observing what has been observed to be 0.00225. A fortuitous thing about this test is that one does not need to know w…

[deleted]

Re: Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

#108

Post by paulintrognon »

visarga wrote: post #88
srean wrote: post #80

Taking the numbers at their face value this is a good exercise in some text book statistical test of hypothesis. Incidents: Before 89. After 126. What is the chance of this happening if the 'rate' of occurrence has not changed ? Assuming an unknown but constant Poisson rate, we get the probability of observing what has been observed to be 0.00225. A fortuitous thing about this test is that one does not need to know w…

Maybe Github has grown significantly since then. More complexity, more down time.

Also, according to the article itself, "[it] could be all a part of coordinated effort to be more transparent about their service status".

Re: Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

#109

Post by wilde »

srean wrote: post #80

Taking the numbers at their face value this is a good exercise in some text book statistical test of hypothesis. Incidents: Before 89. After 126. What is the chance of this happening if the 'rate' of occurrence has not changed ? Assuming an unknown but constant Poisson rate, we get the probability of observing what has been observed to be 0.00225. A fortuitous thing about this test is that one does not need to know w…

What was the YoY change in incidents prior to the acquisition? I’d expect incidents to grow as a function of employee count at least.

Re: Has GitHub been down more since its acquisition by Microsoft?

#110

Post by [deleted] »

srean wrote: post #97
solidasparagus wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming a Poisson rate That feels like a mighty big assumption. Probably big enough that trying to calculate the probability is more misleading than enlightening.

As I mentioned, my comment is meant as an exercise. If we were to take the numbers more seriously, due diligence is necessary. That said, if we assume that one incident does not affect the other, then the Poisson nature falls out as a natural consequence of that independence and the assumption of a constant rate (our Null hypothesis). As long as the incidents are spaced out enough, that the possibility of one inciden…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN