3 ms·

Brother there’s nothing to capitalize on. They really don’t want an avalanche of free users bringing their shit down too I think.

PunchyHamster 5mo ago
companies using paid github are in same spot. Tho I'd imagine many already moved over
- Game_Ender 5mo ago
  Unless you pay for enterprise then you are on the Enterprise Cloud Instance: https://us.githubstatus.com/posts/dashboard https://us.githubstatus.com/posts/dashboard
  - Marsymars 5mo ago
    I've never actually seen that status page before, and I'm not clear what it's measuring. My company pays for Enterprise Cloud, and we see all the same downtime as what gets posted to https://www.githubstatus.com/ https://www.githubstatus.com/
  - semiquaver 5mo ago
    That is the ghe.com status page, which it seems like no one actually uses, hence the good uptime. Most Enterprise Cloud customers don’t use it. https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/data-residency/about-github-enterprise-cloud-with-data-residency https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/dat...
  - everfrustrated 5mo ago
    No the Enterprise Cloud is just the same GitHub.com with the same shitty reliability. However the newer Enterprise Cloud with Residency (aka on Azure) is a separate partition and has a different reliability domain (still subject to Azures bad reliability so not an entirely compelling offer). This is what you linked.
- tokioyoyo 5mo ago
  Most companies signing up to the idea that GitHub will fix their issues, rather than going through operational pain of migration. Everyone that I know jokes about GH downtime, but have zero internal talks about migration. Obviously small data point, but GitLab going this route shows not a lot of people are switching.
mh- 5mo ago
Yeah, but they could make it up in volume.
KaiserPro 5mo ago
Gitlab used to be about as reliable as github. (ignoring the security oopses they used to have) They simply don't have (or didnt) the skills to scale. THey were talking about using ceph to run things (which gives you an idea about how green their infra team was)
- oblio 5mo ago
  What's wrong with Ceph?
  - KaiserPro 5mo ago
    Whats right with it? Its slow, large, excessively complex and not that resilient to failure. You either want a bunch of NFS machines backed on to ZFS on nvme, with a central jumping off point that allows sharding (this is critical to allow one or more NFS server to fuck up and not kill access to everything else.) Or, pay the money and use GPFS
    - antongribok 5mo ago
      As someone who's in charge of close to an exabyte on Ceph, I couldn't disagree with you more. Done correctly, Ceph is extremely reliable, resilient, and fast. Once you get over the initial learning curve, dare I say, even a joy to work with.
      - arpa 5mo ago
        I concur, even though I have only used it as a hobbyist.
      - KaiserPro 5mo ago
        For parallel read/write access across many thousands of large-ish files (ie multiples of the minimum chunk size) I'm sure it does grand. But for metadata heavy operations, ie git, its not the FS I would choose. like lustre it can be fast, if your workload aligns with it's tradeoffs. but high metadata loads are not ceph-fs's strong point, (or many other distributed filesystems either)

PunchyHamster 5mo ago

companies using paid github are in same spot. Tho I'd imagine many already moved over

Game_Ender 5mo ago
Unless you pay for enterprise then you are on the Enterprise Cloud Instance: https://us.githubstatus.com/posts/dashboard https://us.githubstatus.com/posts/dashboard
- Marsymars 5mo ago
  I've never actually seen that status page before, and I'm not clear what it's measuring. My company pays for Enterprise Cloud, and we see all the same downtime as what gets posted to https://www.githubstatus.com/ https://www.githubstatus.com/
- semiquaver 5mo ago
  That is the ghe.com status page, which it seems like no one actually uses, hence the good uptime. Most Enterprise Cloud customers don’t use it. https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/data-residency/about-github-enterprise-cloud-with-data-residency https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/dat...
- everfrustrated 5mo ago
  No the Enterprise Cloud is just the same GitHub.com with the same shitty reliability. However the newer Enterprise Cloud with Residency (aka on Azure) is a separate partition and has a different reliability domain (still subject to Azures bad reliability so not an entirely compelling offer). This is what you linked.
tokioyoyo 5mo ago
Most companies signing up to the idea that GitHub will fix their issues, rather than going through operational pain of migration. Everyone that I know jokes about GH downtime, but have zero internal talks about migration. Obviously small data point, but GitLab going this route shows not a lot of people are switching.

mh- 5mo ago

Yeah, but they could make it up in volume.

KaiserPro 5mo ago

Gitlab used to be about as reliable as github. (ignoring the security oopses they used to have) They simply don't have (or didnt) the skills to scale. THey were talking about using ceph to run things (which gives you an idea about how green their infra team was)

oblio 5mo ago
What's wrong with Ceph?
- KaiserPro 5mo ago
  Whats right with it? Its slow, large, excessively complex and not that resilient to failure. You either want a bunch of NFS machines backed on to ZFS on nvme, with a central jumping off point that allows sharding (this is critical to allow one or more NFS server to fuck up and not kill access to everything else.) Or, pay the money and use GPFS
  - antongribok 5mo ago
    As someone who's in charge of close to an exabyte on Ceph, I couldn't disagree with you more. Done correctly, Ceph is extremely reliable, resilient, and fast. Once you get over the initial learning curve, dare I say, even a joy to work with.
    - arpa 5mo ago
      I concur, even though I have only used it as a hobbyist.
    - KaiserPro 5mo ago
      For parallel read/write access across many thousands of large-ish files (ie multiples of the minimum chunk size) I'm sure it does grand. But for metadata heavy operations, ie git, its not the FS I would choose. like lustre it can be fast, if your workload aligns with it's tradeoffs. but high metadata loads are not ceph-fs's strong point, (or many other distributed filesystems either)