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

GitHub was having issues

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 231 posts

Re: GitHub was having issues

#171

Post by 12_throw_away »

makkesk8 wrote: post #73
jeltz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any important feature from Gitlab you feel is missing? I personally think Gitlab has way more features than I need but maybe there are some important ones I would miss.

Running Gitlab in any kind of scale beyond a single server is a major PITA. And it's very poorly optimized.

Yeah, I love gitlab as a user - but as an admin, the performance feels like something out the 90s. I had to use the gitlab-rails REPL console for something a couple of weeks ago. Even on a server with tons of headroom, it took *10 minutes* to start up?

Re: GitHub was having issues

#172

Post by agloe_dreams »

lesuorac wrote: post #157
zemo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used GitHub for years in the tech industry, then went into the games industry and used BitBucket and hated it, thought it was such a downgrade. Now I'm back in the tech industry and using GitHub, and I miss BitBucket.

Starting to pretty much desire tools that can do nothing but are just fast at their core competency. Looking at PRs in github and then when toggling to the "files" tab it chocking up or being like "I don't want to display this file because its more than 100 lines" is like wtf you're whole point is to show me modified files.

I'm about to sound crazy.

Github's problem is that it isn't a SPA. It is a massive Ruby on rails project that is all server-rendered. Everything you do needs to be synchronous and almost everything requires a reload. A react or angular app with great restraint would be dramatically faster at all of this as viewing a file is just an API call - not a page reload. They are stuck with their hands tied as loading large data would cause the whole page load to be delayed - thus silly limits.

Many things should not be webapps... but an app on the web like this...probably should.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#173

Post by oasisbob »

hk1337 wrote: post #154
ta1243 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS charges for ipv4 doesn't it?

In regards to an EC2, AFAIK, not necessarily. You pay extra for an elastic IP (IPv4) which is the equivalent to a static IP but the EC2 is assigned an IPv4 address and an IPv6 when IPv6 is enabled.

Beginning in early 2024, AWS began charging for every IPv4 address in-use on your resources.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address...

Re: GitHub was having issues

#174

Post by j45 »

tracker1 wrote: post #140
j45 wrote: post #30

The cloud is someone else’s computer. I wonder if self hosting is more reliable. How much does a private and firewalled git* instance need updates?

If you don't need any features beyond a backup location for git, all you need is an SSH server with FS support. All you need is git on the remote server to initialize a server directory, and you can target that with git+ssh directly. Works well enough as a backup/mirror repository. If you want to self-host for more features (CI/CD, PRs, etc.) there's GitLab, Gitea, and forgejo that I'm aware of. I think GitLab is a b…

Yup, as you mentioned, there's other alternatives to Gitlab lcaolly that are decent.

I'm finding myself liking and using gitlab more and more when I come back to it every 6-8 months.

I don't know how I'd be able to trust only a cloud for my source code and devops/CI/CD. At least a mirrored setup in a private or hybrid cloud on another provider as a failover that isn't with the same cloud provider.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#175

Post by j45 »

homebrewer wrote: post #54
j45 wrote: post #30

The cloud is someone else’s computer. I wonder if self hosting is more reliable. How much does a private and firewalled git* instance need updates?

Our gitea uptimes are measured in months. The only downtime is during non-working hours for upgrading gitea & the underlying OS, which take about 5 seconds of work and another 15 seconds of waiting for it to upgrade the database and restart.

That's great to hear, taking this downtime to install them all and try them out.

At the very least a few backups and mirrors running once I get them syncing.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#176

Post by j45 »

taude wrote: post #39
j45 wrote: post #30

The cloud is someone else’s computer. I wonder if self hosting is more reliable. How much does a private and firewalled git* instance need updates?

Before gitlabs, github, etc. it was common to host your own code repos on-prem. The thing now, though, is that there's a lot of add-on functionality for how teams flow from using github over just hosting a git server.... so it's not really apples v oranges, anymore.

Gitlab can handle a lot of CI/CD hosted locally for free that github actually charges for.

Git was originally local only too. People would run their own source code repos, it was trivial to run and maintain for the most part for most basic to intermediate use cases.

I had clients who insisted source code (mine or theirs) couldn't be on a public cloud provider. It's not that unreasonable or uncommon.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#177

Post by lpapez »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #172
lesuorac wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting to pretty much desire tools that can do nothing but are just fast at their core competency. Looking at PRs in github and then when toggling to the "files" tab it chocking up or being like "I don't want to display this file because its more than 100 lines" is like wtf you're whole point is to show me modified files.

I'm about to sound crazy. Github's problem is that it isn't a SPA. It is a massive Ruby on rails project that is all server-rendered. Everything you do needs to be synchronous and almost everything requires a reload. A react or angular app with great restraint would be dramatically faster at all of this as viewing a file is just an API call - not a page reload. They are stuck with their hands tied as loading large da…

You can have parts of the web app rendered on the client, and still keep the rest of the app the same. Rewrite the diffs and previews, keep the rest as-is.

There is no excuse for possibly the most used feature of Github to suck so badly.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#178

Post by cyrilou242 »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #172
lesuorac wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting to pretty much desire tools that can do nothing but are just fast at their core competency. Looking at PRs in github and then when toggling to the "files" tab it chocking up or being like "I don't want to display this file because its more than 100 lines" is like wtf you're whole point is to show me modified files.

I'm about to sound crazy. Github's problem is that it isn't a SPA. It is a massive Ruby on rails project that is all server-rendered. Everything you do needs to be synchronous and almost everything requires a reload. A react or angular app with great restraint would be dramatically faster at all of this as viewing a file is just an API call - not a page reload. They are stuck with their hands tied as loading large da…

> Everything you do needs to be synchronous and almost everything requires a reload.

this is pretty incorrect, you may want to look into the concept of "partials" in SSR. maybe you meant everything requires a roundtrip ? but SPA would not solve most of the roundtrips necessary in github given many interactions in the github app require authn/authz checks.

would you care getting into more details ?

Also, 'old' github was known to be very fast an reliable and was indeed a ruby on rails SSR app. Since a few years ago github started to introduce react and more client side logic and it correlates with more issues and more slowness in the frontend. It only correlates, but still.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#179

Post by edoceo »

ta1243 wrote: post #143
colinbartlett wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some customers of my product, StatusGator, do this with our API. They can extract the outage data -- including the time when we detect the outage before its acknowledged. And then use that to get SLA credits.

Why would I trust you to report Its great that your specific product does this, but as a whole I have to monitor the service separately to keep you honest (well not you specifically, I'm sure you are honest and do as much as you can to be honest, but not every company is), and of course to monitor the problems I have which you don't detect.

Gotta get a monitor for the monitor, then a manger for the monitors, and a manager to manage the managers of monitors.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#180

Post by JanMa »

petcat wrote: post #70
everfrustrated wrote: post #42

Enterprise customers, remember to email your sales rep and ask for them to report on their contracted uptime with you that you are allowed to do as per contract. They wont do this unless you ask hoping you don't notice the outages. It creates lots of internal pain - they have no automation internally for reporting on this. This is the only way anything will ever change. GitHub is _easily_ the most unreliable SaaS pro…

> GitHub is _easily_ the most unreliable SaaS product. Some of us are stuck using Atlassian and BitBucket and it is by far worse in every way.

I used to maintain a self hosted instance of BitBucket and the user experience of it was actually very nice. We shut it down when Atlassian deprecated the self-hosted licenses. Moving to GitHub and GitHub Actions felt like a downgrade in more than a few ways
Post reply on HN