Github lost at least one 9, if not two, since last year's "existential" migration to Azure.
I'm pretty sure they don't GAF about GH uptime as long as they can keep training models on it (0.5 /s), but Azure is revenue friction so might be a real problem. Something this week about "oops we need a quality czar": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46903802
> (0.5 /s),
Does this mean you are only half-sarcastic/half-joking? Or did I interpret that wrong?
I'm pretty sure they don't GAF about GH uptime as long as they can keep training models on it (0.5 /s), but Azure is revenue friction so might be a real problem. Something this week about "oops we need a quality czar": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46903802
> (0.5 /s), Does this mean you are only half-sarcastic/half-joking? Or did I interpret that wrong?
GitHub no longer publishes aggregate numbers so here they are parsed out. It looks like they are down to a single 9 at this point across all services: https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/
Do I misunderstand or does your page count today's downtime as minor? I would not count the web UI being mostly unusable as minor. Does this mean GitHub understates how bad incidents are? Pr has your page just not yet been updated to include it?
You've been banging on about this for a while, I think this is my third time responding to one of your accounts. There is no antitrust issue, how are they messing with other competitors? You never back up your reasoning. How many accounts do you have active since I bet all the downvotes are from you?
I've had two accounts. I changed because I don't like the history (maybe one other person has the same opinion I did?). Anyways it's pretty obvious why this is an issue. Microsoft has a historical issue with being brutal to competition. There is no oversight as to what they do with the private data on GitHub. It's absolutely an antitrust issue. Do you need more reasoning?
Didn't you just privately tell me it was 4 accounts? Maybe that was someone else hating on Windows 95. But you need an active reason not what they did 20 years ago.
Migrations of Actions and Copilot to Azure completed in 2024. Pages and Packages completed in 2025. Core platform and databases began in October 2025 and are in progress, with traffic split between the legacy Github data center and Azure.
This has those Hotmail migration vibes off the early 2000s.
And yet, somehow my wife still has a hotmail.com address 25 years later.
GitHub no longer publishes aggregate numbers so here they are parsed out. It looks like they are down to a single 9 at this point across all services: https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/
Do I misunderstand or does your page count today's downtime as minor? I would not count the web UI being mostly unusable as minor. Does this mean GitHub understates how bad incidents are? Pr has your page just not yet been updated to include it?
GitHub no longer publishes aggregate numbers so here they are parsed out. It looks like they are down to a single 9 at this point across all services: https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/
It's interesting to see that copilot has the worst overall. I use copilot completions constantly and rarely notice issues with it. I suspect incidents aren't added until after they resolve.
If you'd have asked me a few years ago if anything could be an existential threat to github's dominance in the tech community I'd have quickly said no. If they don't get their ops house in order, this will go down as an all-time own goal in our industry.
This is obviously empty speculation, but I wonder if the mindless rush to AI has anything to do with the increase in outages we've seen recently.
Is there any reason why Github needs 99.99% uptime? You can continue working with your local repo.
I think this is being downvoted unfairly. I mean, sure, as a company accepting payment for services, being down for a few hours every few months is notably bad by modern standards. But the inward-looking point is correct: git itself is a distributed technology, and development using it is distributed and almost always latency-tolerant. To the extent that github's customers have processes that are dependent on service…
There are still some processes that require a waterfall method for development, though. One example would be if you have a designer, and also have a front-end developer that is waiting for a feature to be complete to come in and start their development. I know on HN it's common for people to be full-stack developers, or for front-end developers to be able to work with a mockup and write the code before a designer gets involved, but there are plenty of companies that don't work that way. Even if a company is working in an agile manner, there still may come a time where work stalls until some part of a system is finished by another team/team-member, especially in a monorepo. Of course they could change the organization of their project, but the time suck of doing that (like going with microservices) is probably going to waste quite a bit more time than how often GitHub is down.
> have you considered moving or having at least an alternative Not who you're responding to, but my 2 cents: for a popular open-source project reliant on community contributions there is really no alternative. It's similar to social media - we all know it's trash and noxious, but if you're any kind of public figure you have to be there.
Several quite big projects have moved to Codeberg. I have no idea how it has worked out for them.