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

GitHub: Git operation failures

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 335 posts

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#281

Post by CGamesPlay »

jakewins wrote: post #218
IshKebab wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think you'd get better uptime with your own solution? I doubt it. It would just be at a different time.

“Your own solution” should be that CI isn’t doing anything you can’t do on developer machines. CI is a convenience that runs your Make or Bazel or Just or whatever you prefer builds, that your production systems work fine without. I’ve seen that work first hand to keep critical stuff deployable through several CI outages, and also has the upside of making it trivial to debug “CI issues”, since it’s trivial to run the…

Yes, this, but it’s a little more nuanced because of secrets. Giving every employee access to the production deploy key isn’t exactly great OpSec.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#283

Post by dsagent »

zdragnar wrote: post #277
suddenlybananas wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be deliberately provocative, LLMs are being more and more widely used.

Word on the street is github was already a giant mess before the rise of LLMs, and it has not improved with the move to MS.

They are also in the process of moving most of the infra from on-prem to Azure. I'm sure will see more issues over the next couple months.

https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#284

Post by h4kunamata »

With Microsoft (Behind GitHub) going full AI mode, expected things to get worse.

I worked for one of the largest company in my country, they had "catch-up" with GitHub and it is not longer about GitHub as you folks are used to but AI aka CoPilot.

We are seeing major techs such as but not limited to Google, AWS and Azure going under after making public that their code is 30% AI generated (Google).

Even Xbox(Microsoft) and its gaming studio got destroyed (COD BO7) for heavily dependency on AI.

Don't you find it coincidence all of these system outage worldwide happening right after they proudly shared heavily dependency on AI??

Companies aren't using AI/ML to improve processes but to replace people, full stop. The AI stock market is having a massive meltdown as we speak with indications that the AI bubble went live.

If you as a company wanna keep your productivity at 99.99% from now on:

* GitLab: Self-hosted GitLab/runners * Datacenter: AWS/GCP/Azure is no longer a safe option or cheaper, we have data center companies such as Equinix which have a massive backup plan in place. I have visited one, they are prepared for a nuclear war and I am not even being dramatic. If I was starting a new company in 2025, I would go back to datacenter over AWS/GCP/Azure * Self-host everything you can, and no, it does not require 5 days in the office to manage all of that.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#285

Post by amazingman »

h4kunamata wrote: post #284

With Microsoft (Behind GitHub) going full AI mode, expected things to get worse. I worked for one of the largest company in my country, they had "catch-up" with GitHub and it is not longer about GitHub as you folks are used to but AI aka CoPilot. We are seeing major techs such as but not limited to Google, AWS and Azure going under after making public that their code is 30% AI generated (Google). Even Xbox(Microsoft)…

I didn't see a case made for self-hosting as the better option, instead I see that proposition being assumed true. Why would it be better for my company to roll its own CI/CD?

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#286

Post by octoberfranklin »

Aurornis wrote: post #177
parliament32 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those sound achievable by email, which, coincidently, is also decentralized.

Some of my open source work is done on mailing lists through e-mail It's more work and slower. I'm convinced half of the reason they keep it that way is because the barrier to entry is higher and it scares contributors away.

Well it does prevent brigading.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#288

Post by tombert »

wnevets wrote: post #99
SteveNuts wrote: post #67

I have a serious question, not trying to start a flame war. A. Are these major issues with cloud/SaaS tools becoming more common, or is it just that they get a lot more coverage now? It seems like we see major issues across AWS, GCP, Azure, Github, etc. at least monthly now and I don't remember that being the case in the past. B. If it's becoming more common, what are the reasons? I can think of a few, but I don't kn…

> A. Are these major issues with cloud/SaaS tools becoming more common, or is it just that they get a lot more coverage now? It seems like we see major issues across AWS, GCP, Azure, Github, etc. at least monthly now and I don't remember that being the case in the past. FWIW Microsoft is convinced moving Github to Azure will fix these outages

Microsoft is a company that hasn't even figured out how to get system updating working consistently on their premier operating system in three decades. It seems unlikely to me that somehow moving to Azure is going to make anything more stable.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#289

Post by manquer »

wavemode wrote: post #217
IshKebab wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think you'd get better uptime with your own solution? I doubt it. It would just be at a different time.

Uptime is much, much easier at low scale than at high scale. The reason for buying centralized cloud solutions is not uptime, it's to safe the headache of developing and maintaining the thing.

It is easier until things go down.

Meaning the cloud may go down more frequently than small scale self deployments , however downtimes are always on average much shorter on cloud. A lot of money is at stake for clouds providers, so GitHub et al have the resources to put to fix a problem compared to you or me when self hosting.

On the other hand when things go down self hosted, it is far more difficult or expensive to have on call engineers who can actual restore services quickly .

The skill to understand and fix a problem is limited so it takes longer for semi skilled talent to do so, while the failure modes are simpler but not simple.

The skill difference between setting up something locally that works and something works reliably is vastly different. The talent with the latter are scarce to find or retain .

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#290

Post by tombert »

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #142
bovermyer wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is also convinced that its works are a net benefit for humanity, so I would take that with a grain of salt.

I think it would be pretty hard to argue against that point of view, at least thus far. If DOS/Windows hadn't become the dominant OS someone would have, and a whole generation of engineers cut their teeth on their parents' windows PCs.

If Microsoft hadn't tried to actively kill all its competition then there's a good chance that we'd have a much better internet. Microsoft is bigger than just an operating system, they're a whole corporation.

Instead they actively tried to murder open standards [1] that they viewed as competitive and normalized the antitrust nightmare that we have now.

I think by nearly any measure, Microsoft is not a net good. They didn't invent the operating system, there were lots of operating systems that came out in the 80's and 90's, many of which were better than Windows, that didn't have the horrible anticompetitive baggage attached to them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Post reply on HN