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

181–190 of 231 posts

Re: GitHub was having issues

#181

Post by drozycki »

dehrmann wrote: post #167
e3bc54b2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hetzner charges extra for IPv4 address, as I believe most of them do. I know because I went through the same crap.

It seems more like a weird Hetzner thing that they won't give you a IPv4 NAT gateway.

How would a server-side NAT know which Hetzner customer it should route a request to? It has an encrypted packet arriving at this shared address on port 443. You can route a shared address to the proper service based on the HTTP Host header but that can only be done by the customer using their encryption key, so no sharing an address between customers. Home LAN NAT only works because the router can change the source port used by the request so that responses are unambiguously routed to the right client.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#184

Post by xyst »

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…

All this does is make some poor offshore schmuck toil away for hours trying to get this data.

If companies begin to _cancel_ their contracts with MSFT/GH because of a breach of SLAs, then maybe conditions will improve.

Reality: companies locked into multi year deals with MSFT including a MSFT-shit suite and windows licenses.

Migrating away from it will be expensive. MS knows this. Thus the reason why nothing will change.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#185

Post by FinnKuhn »

dehrmann wrote: post #165
cddotdotslash wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies should automate this. Write their own outage monitoring, feed the results, plus the cumbersome format you have to send to the provider, into an LLM, have it spit out an email requesting SLA credits or whatever the contract specifies. Probably not worth it for low cost services, but if you’re paying GitHub $x millions per year, maybe it is.

Obviously you should use a SaaS for SaaS uptime monitoring. No need to build this yourself.

You can also self-host something like Prometheus or Uptime-Kuma.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#186

Post by lelandbatey »

drozycki wrote: post #181
dehrmann wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems more like a weird Hetzner thing that they won't give you a IPv4 NAT gateway.

How would a server-side NAT know which Hetzner customer it should route a request to? It has an encrypted packet arriving at this shared address on port 443. You can route a shared address to the proper service based on the HTTP Host header but that can only be done by the customer using their encryption key, so no sharing an address between customers. Home LAN NAT only works because the router can change the source…

I don't think they're saying they should support incoming connections on such a NAT, I think they're saying that servers behind the NAT would be able to make outgoing connections (e.g. to access shared resources).

Re: GitHub was having issues

#187

Post by xyst »

sneak wrote: post #148
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…

The way you change this is not by pressuring Microsoft to be better or less of a shitty company. The way that you change this is by switching to a different forge host, or by self-hosting Gitea. I do so, and it’s simple and painless and cheap, and this quarter my uptime is better than this multinational’s.

this, but unfortunately many Fortune 500 are so deep in the MSFT stack. It would take many years to migrate off.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#189

Post by Nicook »

ta1243 wrote: post #129
sigio wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also _by_far_ the cheapest, and most git-work can be done offline, so while it's inconvenient, it's not stopping all operations here.

Depends how intergrated you are. If you're using it as a code repository fine, if you're tying your workflows into it with pull requests, actions, maybe a third party CI which ties to it, and use it as part of operations then it's a major problem I just approved a PR which added a user to one of our AWS accounts for example, if github is down then that PR can't be approved, the update can't work and the user can't ac…

I mean you can always work around it with the correct permissions right.

Re: GitHub was having issues

#190

Post by zulban »

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.

I'm no fan of Microsoft either but when you say ridiculous things it's hard to take you seriously.

Post reply on HN