3 ms·
Of all the sites/graphs I've seen of GH outages, this one is the most striking IMO: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/ https://damrnelson.g
by rsyring 5mo ago
Of all the sites/graphs I've seen of GH outages, this one is the most striking IMO:
https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/ https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it's being updated with new data. But it wouldn't look any better for GH if it was.
- stogot 5mo agoI wonder what the cause of this was? Microsoft Politics? Bureaucracy? Forced move to azure?
- felooboolooomba 5mo agoMy guess would be a obnoxious and lethal mixture of all of the above.
- lazide 5mo agoAlso AI mandates.
- gen220 5mo agoFWIW, I'm not convinced that chart is necessarily an accurate representation of pre-acquisition reality. It would really surprise me if GitHub did not have a single sev-0 pre-acquisition, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were not formally captured and reported in a format that would make its way into their current status page's database.
- rsyring 5mo agoApparently, you aren't alone. :) https://github.com/DaMrNelson/github-historical-uptime/issues/2 https://github.com/DaMrNelson/github-historical-uptime/issue...
- crote 5mo agoSure, but it isn't completely wrong either. GH going down used to be quite rare. If it failed to load I'd spend a bunch of time trying to figure out what was wrong with my internet connection, just to read on HN that it was down for everyone. This week GH failed to load and I automatically assumed it was a GH issue - just for it to be followed up a few minutes later by a marketing coworker complaining about internet connectivity. Turns out the office internet connection was dropping about 50% of all packets. It is bad enough that business-side managers are noticing that GH issues are slowing work down. That would've been unimaginable a few years ago.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]