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

101–110 of 804 posts

Re: The August 17 outage

#101

Post by stackghost »

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.

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

Look, I hate Microslop as much as anyone but you'd have to purposely misinterpret TFA in order to arrive at this interpretation. C'mon.

Re: The August 17 outage

#103

Post by mvdtnz »

ryanisnan wrote: post #99

Here's Vladimir Fedorov's GitHub contribution graph, as linked to as the author of this post: https://imgur.com/a/zIbT0Gi It shows zero contributions in the past year, on this account. This is a huge, huge red flag.

Mine would look the same if you didn't have access to the private repositories I contribute to at work.

Re: The August 17 outage

#104

Post by Avicebron »

xienze wrote: post #73
xyzsparetimexyz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow. they should really institute a maximum amount of individual pushes per-month per-user.

Which will just increase the cries of "enshittification" and hasten the mass migration to the next free platform that surely, this time, won't ever go down.

We're small enough that we've been hosting our git infra for about a year now, I wonder how many other companies figured out they could make the trade. I've had a Github since a couple years after they started and I think they are going to become a Stack Overflow, albeit slower with MS at the helm. If Github is going to be 99% slop it's going to be really hard to use as a fun tool to show what you can do, what you've worked on, side projects, etc. I took github off my resume and I'm probably not going to relaunch my weblog if I end up job hunting, too much low-effort crap and people basically copying what a lot of us had been doing manually for years to really feel like it's anything other than a negative signal.

Re: The August 17 outage

#105

Post by ryanisnan »

mvdtnz wrote: post #103
ryanisnan wrote: post #99

Here's Vladimir Fedorov's GitHub contribution graph, as linked to as the author of this post: https://imgur.com/a/zIbT0Gi It shows zero contributions in the past year, on this account. This is a huge, huge red flag.

Mine would look the same if you didn't have access to the private repositories I contribute to at work.

Don't contributions to private repositories simply show as: "N contributions in private repositories"?

Here's me: https://github.com/ryanisnan

In other words, I think his private contributions should still manifest on the contribution graph. And for being the CTO of an organization like GitHub, with no open-source contributions... Not a great look.

Re: The August 17 outage

#106

Post by consumer451 »

xyzsparetimexyz wrote: post #52
brookst wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is. I know I've gone from tens a month to thousands a month. They have to be projecting >100B/month in the next year or two.

wow. they should really institute a maximum amount of individual pushes per-month per-user.

That would just drive users into the arms of the alternatives, which would love to own the world's code... like Cursor/Musk.

Microsoft and GitHub's only option is to suck it up, absorb this growth, and lower failure rates. They have the money, so that's not the issue.

As someone on the sidelines, this is really interesting to watch unfold.

Re: The August 17 outage

#107

Post by OJFord »

arn3n wrote: post #78

Everyone suggesting that they simply charge users for commits to drive off AI-heavy users forgets that Github is owned by Microsoft, who has a big incentive to keep having developers use AI. I suspect that Microsoft would even prefer to have Github operate at a loss, if that loss were because all its users were using their models and paying for OpenAI subscriptions to generate the code.

> I suspect that Microsoft would even prefer to have Github operate at a loss,

I assumed it does, do you know that it doesn't?

Re: The August 17 outage

#108

Post by verdverm »

dcrazy wrote: post #54
dpweb wrote: post #41

Sorry to suggest this but if they charged everyone say $1/mo. it would absolutely help the massive surge from AI coding they seem to have had. I don't like paying for free stuff but gh certainly worth it.

Pay per issue and commit. Buy 1,000 commit credits at a time. Might force people to review their slop before pushing it.

I would support time based quotas or limits per tier (free, solo, team, etc)

But I'm not going to pay per commit over my monthly plan

Re: The August 17 outage

#109

Post by t-sauer »

mikert89 wrote: post #84
blakesterz wrote: post #4

"Since April, monthly commits have grown from 1.4 billion to 2.9 billion. " Wow, that is some incredible growth in a really short time.

alot of distributed systems in big companies grow at this rate, its not exponential, its mundane

Did you read the article? It is growing exponential.

Re: The August 17 outage

#110

Post by reticulates »

ryanisnan wrote: post #99

Here's Vladimir Fedorov's GitHub contribution graph, as linked to as the author of this post: https://imgur.com/a/zIbT0Gi It shows zero contributions in the past year, on this account. This is a huge, huge red flag.

I strongly disagree. GitHub, a year ago, acknowledged the fundamental problems and began work on them. We all agree with the diagnosis and strategy: stop building new things, bring stability. Why would whether the CTO codes have any bearing on the correctness of this strategy? GitHub’s problem isn’t that leadership don’t understand the product, or that they don’t know what they should be doing, it’s that they’re battling unprecedented demand. If it was a disconnect between users and leadership on what matters, sure, a CTO who doesn’t use the product would be notable, but that isn’t the problem. And that’s all assuming he doesn’t actually use the product, maybe his privacy settings hide private commits.
Post reply on HN