4 ms·

That is a pretty wild graph

• throwaway2037 5mo ago
  Can you explain more of what you mean by "wild" here? I never worked on any SaaS that had such high uptime. It seems pretty good to me. In 10 years, it was always better than 99.5% uptime. That seems impressive to me for a huge, complex SaaS like GitHub.
  • philipallstar 5mo ago
    I might be wrong, but isn't half a percent almost 2 days of downtime in a year?
    • someguyiguess 5mo ago
      Or 7 minutes a day.
• criley2 5mo ago
  Feels like a pretty wildly misleading graph. What do they say about lies, damned lies and statistics? This graph is literally designed to abuse correlation =/= causation by attaching the arbitrary label "microsoft acquires github" so that the reader will apply causation to the uptime. Now let's overlay ontop of the uptime graph a few lines of: # of monthly active users, # of monthly commits, size of PRs, action minutes per PR (whatever demonstrates scaling) Something tells me that the uptime issues follow scale more than they do ownership... but that's not the narrative that this chart was designed for...
  • aprentic 5mo ago
    The nice thing about statistics and math is that you don't need to stop at a feeling. If doubt their math, do it yourself.
    • deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
• someguyiguess 5mo ago
  There is no way Github had 100% uptime prior to the MS acquisition. Nobody has 100% uptime 100% of the time. They must have changed how they were measuring uptime.