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

GitHub's Historic Uptime

damrnelson.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 131 posts

Re: GitHub's Historic Uptime

#21

Post by montroser »

mholt wrote: post #13

Even better IMO is this status page: https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ "The Missing GitHub Status Page" with overall aggregate percentages. Currently at 90.84% over the last 90 days. It was at 90.00% a couple days ago.

It has been pretty rough. Their own numbers report just a single `9` for Actions in Feb 2026 with 98% uptime. But that said -- I don't get the 90% number.

Anecdotally, it seems believable that 1 in 50 times (2%) in Feb that Actions barfed. Which is not very nice, but it wasn't at 1 in 10 times (10%).

Re: GitHub's Historic Uptime

#22

Post by fontain »

mholt wrote: post #13

Even better IMO is this status page: https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ "The Missing GitHub Status Page" with overall aggregate percentages. Currently at 90.84% over the last 90 days. It was at 90.00% a couple days ago.

An aggregate number like that doesn’t seem to be a reasonable measure. Should OpenAI models being unavailable in CoPilot because OpenAI has an outage be considered GitHub “downtime”?

Re: GitHub's Historic Uptime

#24

Post by imglorp »

dewey wrote: post #7

I remember a lot of unicorn pages back in the days. Maybe the status page was just not updated that regularly back then?

I think the unicorn is only for web pages. Things like git api services might be broken independently (and often are!) and they might show up on the status page after some time.

Re: GitHub's Historic Uptime

#27

Post by hk__2 »

It’s biaised to show this without the dates at which features were introduced. A lot of the downtimes in the breakdown are GitHub Actions, which launched in August 2019; so yeah what a surprise there was no Actions downtime before because Actions didn’t exist.

Re: GitHub's Historic Uptime

#28

Post by fontain »

GitHub is 100x the size today with 100x the product surface area. Pre-Microsoft GitHub was just a git host. Now, whether GitHub should have become what it is today is a fair question but to say “GitHub” is less stable today vs. 10 years ago ignores the significant changes. Also, much of these incidents are limited to products that are unreliable by nature, e.g: CoPilot depends on OpenAI and OpenAI has outages. The entire LLM API industry expects some requests to fail.

GitHub’s reliability could stand to be improved but without narrowing down to products these sort of comparisons are meaningless.

Re: GitHub's Historic Uptime

#29

Post by psini »

irishcoffee wrote: post #17
shrinks99 wrote: post #14

I got Claude to make me the exact same graph a few weeks ago! I had hypothesized that we'd see a sharp drop off, instead what I found (as this project also shows) is a rather messy average trend of outages that has been going on for some time. The graph being all nice before the Microsoft acquisition is a fun narrative, until you realize that some products (like actions, announced on October 16th, 2018) didn't exist…

Github actions needs to go away. Git, in the linux mantra, is a tool written to do one job very well. Productizing it, bolting shit onto the sides of it, and making it more than it should be was/is a giant mistake. The whole "just because we could doesn't mean we should" quote applies here.

But GitHub actions is not Git?

Re: GitHub's Historic Uptime

#30

Post by darkhorn »

When I say that Microsoft writes very bad code some people get offended. For example for Azure Event Hubs they have almost no documentation and Java libraries that mostly do not run.
Post reply on HN