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

GitHub was down

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 288 posts

Re: GitHub was down

#261

Post by raxxorraxor »

blt wrote: post #255
TwiztidK wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The era of Twitter/X status pages needs to come to an end given how unusable it is if you aren't logged in.

Making logins required to view twitter was the ultimate bed shitting move. The whole point of twitter was to be a broadcast medium. Tweets were viewable without following or logging in. There is a huge vacuum in that space now.

For most (social media) platforms really. Management believes it would force users to sign up, but in reality the platform just becomes less relevant because of that limitation. Not even talking about search crawlers.

An all around stupid decision. That said, if management is that shitty, the platform probably won't be attractive for long anyway.

Facebook/Instagram were successful despite that to a degree, but this decision probably still did a lot of damage to their relevancy and user numbers.

Re: GitHub was down

#262

Post by ergocoder »

fragmede wrote: post #250
ergocoder wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At Github's scale, why wouldn't they put a ping monitor from every continent at least? Then, you would show the status based on the continent.

Where on the continent? GitHub is undoubtedly doing blackbox testing internally and has multiple such monitors but that's not going to capture every customer's route to them, leading to the same problem - customers experience GitHub being down, despite monitoring saying it's mostly up. Thus the impass. Even doing whitebox testing, where you know the internals and can this place sensors intelligently, even just for in…

> monitoring it all with 100% fidelity is impossible

This is impossible regardless of how godlike the design is... Nobody is asking for 100% fidelity.

Re: GitHub was down

#265

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #261
blt wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making logins required to view twitter was the ultimate bed shitting move. The whole point of twitter was to be a broadcast medium. Tweets were viewable without following or logging in. There is a huge vacuum in that space now.

For most (social media) platforms really. Management believes it would force users to sign up, but in reality the platform just becomes less relevant because of that limitation. Not even talking about search crawlers. An all around stupid decision. That said, if management is that shitty, the platform probably won't be attractive for long anyway. Facebook/Instagram were successful despite that to a degree, but this d…

> Facebook/Instagram were successful despite that to a degree, but this decision probably still did a lot of damage to their relevancy and user numbers.

FB/IG/Whatsapp have half of humanity logging into their services once per month, so I'm not sure how much better they could be doing if they didn't have a login wall.

Meanwhile, Twitter (with no login wall) never broke 500mn. Like, personally I totally take your point about status updates but I'd have used my Twitter account a lot more if I'd needed to log in to see the content.

Re: GitHub was down

#266

Post by ErikBjare »

antimemetics wrote: post #252
thiagocsf wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That it may be but there’s no excuse. Declare an incident first, investigate later. Cheating SLAs by delaying the incident is a good way to erode trust within and without.

> Declare an incident first, investigate later. If that would be the best way to deal with it- why is literally no one doing it this way and what does that tell you?

False positives?

Re: GitHub was down

#267

Post by majewsky »

xp84 wrote: post #169
cbates wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems slightly unproffesional for a massive company like Github/Microsoft.

I disagree. This hurts no one, and not everything needs to be sanitized and painted over with bland corporatespeak.

I don't think they were asking for corporate speak. But at least I would find a plain technical error message like "cannot contact file server" much more respectable than something like "unicorns are hugging our servers uwu".

Re: GitHub was down

#268

Post by zombot »

bitbasher wrote: post #14

The timing is pretty uncanny. I just deployed a github page and had a DNS issue because I configured it wrong. I hit "check again" and github went down. Hope I don't appear in the incident report.

So it was you who crashed GitHub?

Re: GitHub was down

#269

Post by arianvanp »

flkiwi wrote: post #65

Me: I think I'll update nixos* Nix: barfs voluminous errors I've never seen before Me: whaaaat the farrrrk * nixos updates are pulled from a github repo

They're pulled from our CDN by default. Only if you use experimental flakes is GitHub in the loop. And even if GitHub isn't down you can't pull nixpkgs more than twice per hour without running into rate limits and get your IP banned. Don't rely on GitHub for critical infrastructure.

https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/6975

Re: GitHub was down

#270

Post by aeonik »

x86a wrote: post #181
thund wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

after several minutes the status page is still showing all is fine. For a service like GH, anything more than 30 secs is unacceptable

That is very unrealistic. Infrastructure monitoring at that scale won't even be collecting metrics at that interval. And simple HTTP monitoring would be too flappy for a public status page.

What monitoring tools are you using? I know a ton that can do 30 seconds or less at scale. I'm fact, I'm pretty sure all the big players can do that.
Post reply on HN