95.8%. What would AWS think about that?
GitHub was down
171–180 of 197 posts
Re: GitHub was down
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I'll posit that you never actually had control, only the illusion of control. That's a weird way of phrasing it. When you run your own services and they break you have total control and do have the power to fix it. When you buy SaaS you are relying on someone else. You may very well have more reliability and uptime but you are nonetheless giving up control.
That's exactly the point. Sure you have "control" but what good is all that control if it takes you 4 hours to track down the source of a problem and fix it (for example). Github has 100s of engineers (with heavily specialized knowledge that you don't have btw) working to fix any problems, I'd bet on them over myself and (maybe a handful of engineers) everytime ... and I've run my own subversion/git servers before. S…
100s of engineers working on an outage is a mess. It is more likely you have a handful of them on a given outage.
Re: GitHub was down
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I'll posit that you never actually had control, only the illusion of control. That's a weird way of phrasing it. When you run your own services and they break you have total control and do have the power to fix it. When you buy SaaS you are relying on someone else. You may very well have more reliability and uptime but you are nonetheless giving up control.
That's exactly the point. Sure you have "control" but what good is all that control if it takes you 4 hours to track down the source of a problem and fix it (for example). Github has 100s of engineers (with heavily specialized knowledge that you don't have btw) working to fix any problems, I'd bet on them over myself and (maybe a handful of engineers) everytime ... and I've run my own subversion/git servers before. S…
Yes, but problems are more likely to occur when engineers alter the system in some way. Now if you are in control, you can decide about windows of time in which you don't want something bad to happen (which is of course a reduced probability, not an absolute guarantee, but still the point stands).
Re: GitHub was down
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's the convenience reason. Teams making that trade-off (not having a local mirror) need to understand they made GitHub itself a runtime dependency.
But in theory in a pinch you could spin up a git server somewhere publicly accessible and switch your site to pull from there, and push to there yourself.
Not if you're using more than git from github, for example downloading releases as zip files for deployment.
There are probably a lot of other tempting features to put on your deployment critical path but I'm not in an environment that uses github so I've forgotten.
Re: GitHub was down
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question seems to indicate that you have a runtime dependency on github. If true, this is a problem no matter where your git repo resides. You need to architect a solution wherein you do not have a runtime dependency, especially if it is a single point of failure, or accept that your reliability will never be better than the sum of your services' reli abilities (there was an article on the "calculus of availabil…
> Your question seems to indicate that you have a runtime dependency on github. Really he is speaking to the problem with SAAS. Sure it's cheaper to rely on someone else to do the heavy lifting for you and they can do this because they 'make it up in volume'. But the other side of that coin is no one really knows how to do that anymore. If you wanted to roll your own it's going to be very hard for your company to do…
But a positiv counter argument would be that github/gitlab also does the sharing part of the jobs and you (hopefully) pay them to handle all the security aspect of that public sharing.
Opening a port to your local instance of git implies more thinking and security consideration. Of course you could host a mirror on a cloud instance, but then it's saas anyway and you have even more work to do before ever starting coding.
So yeah github/gitlab does the heavy lifting for you, but for small organisations that might be cheaper overall than to pay somebody mastering all required stack to implement and maintain your own instance(s). For big company no question that an in house git team is probably more efficient.
Re: GitHub was down
#176Everyone is saying: just work on your local repo. But GitHub is way more than just git. There's bug tracking, code review, continuous integration, etc etc. Making your organisation too dependent on a remote service can indeed be a scary prospect and I'm not sure what GitHub offers to mitigate this.
They offer GitHub enterprise you can setup internally if you want.
Re: GitHub was down
#177if only we had a decentralized version control system...
Fossil [1] has always been my go-to DVCS for ages. Not only can I host it myself. I can also run it when completely offline. It offers Bug Reporting, a Wiki and both a web interface and CLI.
Created by Richard Hipp, creator of SQLIte, it's open source and free, has zero dependencies and works across all operating systems.
And even if you don't want to host it yourself, there's always chiselapp.com [2]
[1] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki [2] http://chiselapp.com/
Re: GitHub was down
#178https://status.github.com shows > 18:19 CDT Major service outage.
What's CDT?
Re: GitHub was down
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I'll posit that you never actually had control, only the illusion of control. That's a weird way of phrasing it. When you run your own services and they break you have total control and do have the power to fix it. When you buy SaaS you are relying on someone else. You may very well have more reliability and uptime but you are nonetheless giving up control.
That's exactly the point. Sure you have "control" but what good is all that control if it takes you 4 hours to track down the source of a problem and fix it (for example). Github has 100s of engineers (with heavily specialized knowledge that you don't have btw) working to fix any problems, I'd bet on them over myself and (maybe a handful of engineers) everytime ... and I've run my own subversion/git servers before. S…
Bad analogy time: Its like flying. You don't have control but your are better off without it (unless you are a pilot of course).
Re: GitHub was down
#180Everyone is saying: just work on your local repo. But GitHub is way more than just git. There's bug tracking, code review, continuous integration, etc etc. Making your organisation too dependent on a remote service can indeed be a scary prospect and I'm not sure what GitHub offers to mitigate this.
> Making your organisation too dependent on a remote service can indeed be a scary prospect At every company I've worked for, internal services have been less reliable than github. Certainly way less reliable than gmail. I get that it's scary, in that it feels like you're giving up control over something important to your business. But I'll posit that you never actually had control, only the illusion of control.
Yeah. And a fact that may be one reason is that blaming a outboard supplier like github is easy, but blaming a colleague in company is more complex.