9 ms·
This is one reason us corporate software pushers can't use github and the likes. We need stuff to be hosted on a network we control. Each hour we lose is potent
by hp50g 14y ago
This is one reason us corporate software pushers can't use github and the likes. We need stuff to be hosted on a network we control. Each hour we lose is potentially multiplied by the number of staff as we would push and pull hundreds of times a day. Someones head will roll if were down for more than a couple of minutes at a time.
It becomes just as much of a PITA importing projects github and maven for example as well.
We actually ended up sticking with svn and trac and doing manual mirrors of every source dependency we pull in to protect our asses. SVN is kept only due to externals support (even though all our externals are internal!). Our head rev is over a quarter of million revs, 37gb of data and the repository has been online since 2006 to give you an idea.
I'm aware of github enterprise btw - its actually easier to build our own using trac as we can support it end to end, its a crap load more configurable and we can scale it up and run failover nodes easily using svnsync and pgsql replication. We have our own plugins and reports plugged in using reportlab as well. And its not atlassian's crap either.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- hp50g 14y agoSee updated comment about github. It doesn't cut it.
- rtfeldman 14y agoWhat does Atlassian have to do with GitHub? Are you thinking of Bitbucket?
- UnoriginalGuy 14y agoDoes Github's web-presents actually take down their back-end/client access? I don't know, but I would assume they would use a different server/servers/DNS address for that stuff?
- kevinastone 14y agoSince this seems to be a network problem, it took down both their web servers and their git (ssh) endpoints.
- gfodor 14y agoThis depends entirely if you have better uptime than github. (I don't know github's uptime stats.) That said, it's pretty easy to keep a repo up, so I would guess that if github has a few hours of downtime a year you are still doing better.
- hp50g 14y agoYes we do. 5 nines (that's 5 minutes in a year).
- sjtgraham 14y agoYou did know Git is a DVCS, right? i.e. D for distributed?
- hp50g 14y agoYes. I do. Unfortunately it doesn't support your average corporate workflow and requirements of centralisation very well (it can do it but its not its primary use case). The desktop tooling is also crappy and hard to get non-code-monkeys using it. We use svn for documentation as well and our windows users quite happily edit word documents collaboratively on top of it. SVN is actually better for us.
- Volpe 14y agoI think your issue is, you don't understand DVCS very well.
- hp50g 14y agoI do. I'm a long term user of mercurial for my own projects. I was also an advocate for moving to git in our organisation, but it doesn't fit. One hammer is not necessarily good for all nails.
- Volpe 14y agoI'm sorry with the poor assumption... But you started this thread with "Github downtime is the reason we can't use git internally" <--- This illustrates either you don't understand git very well. OR you don't understand logic very well.... I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on the latter... :\
- pifflesnort 14y agoHow, exactly, do you propose the following things to work if GitHub is down? - Pull requests and code reviews - Automatic integration builds of all checkins - Commit notifications via e-mail - Browsing of sources via the web - Sharing of code between collaborating users DVCS may be "distributed", but organizations and user collaboration are not.
- kleiba 14y agoExcuse my ignorance, since I don't work in the corporate world. But isn't one of the central points of a distributed version control system like git that you don't have to host it at all? (Of course, you still need a network that you're in control of.)
- hp50g 14y agoWell we need a master as an integration point for building deployment packages, which means that you need a central host anyway. Github is usually just this thing for people.
- Volpe 14y agoYou know you can run git internally as well? Using github as an excuse to stay with svn seems rather ill informed. You wouldn't lose hours if github is down. You might lose your ability to deploy (if you are deploying from github) but you could setup any other remote you like, and deploy from that. I'm not sure what the 'size' of your repo has to do with anything...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- hp50g 14y agoWe'd lose our deployment, integration tests, continuous integration, ability to pull other team changes from the master and code review platform. That's a big chunk of our dev infrastructure. Size is mentioned as to be honest we moved a load of stuff to git in 2011 as a test case and it couldn't handle it. We have some test fixture data files (big ones) that it choked on. Not only that, you can't compose software easily without introducing external tooling.
- arianvanp 14y agogit is decentralized. Any sane sysadmin wouldn't use github as a 'central' point, but set up an own remote to which you push. Then every once in a while from that remote, commits are pushed to github. heck you wouldn't even really need a remote.
- elithrar 14y agoAlternatively you can set up an alias (i.e. "all") for multiple remotes and just push to them in one hit. Useful when I'm pushing code to Heroku and GitHub simultaneously.
- hp50g 14y agoAliases on that scale are like hosts files. An utter shit to manage. Its why they invented dns which is a centralized delegated service. The "single source of truth" is hard to avoid.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- analog 14y agoFrom what I've seen in corporate environments downtime of infrastructure run by internal teams is just as high if not higher than with Github.
- hp50g 14y agoThat's anecdotal. My anecdote is that we've run 5 nines for 6 years. We know our shit.
- analog 14y agoWell both of our experiences are anecdotal aren't they. And having a server running doesn't mean that everyone has access to it, one of the issues I've faced is getting approval for VPN access (took a month IIRC) which prevented access to the SVN repo, would not have been an issue with Github. And that org's infrastructure team could probably claim 5 nines uptime as well.
- pifflesnort 14y agoThe organizational delay on VPN provisioning has nothing to do with git, or github, at all. You could have also hosted an external RCS repository over RSH and you wouldn't have had the problem of VPN provisioning being slow. The problem was VPN provisioning, not the source control system.
- analog 14y agoYes, but if the repo was hosted on Github rather than internally then the slow VPN provisioning wouldn't have been an issue. (Good) web services like Github tend to reduce friction, corporate bureaucracies tend to increase friction.
- pifflesnort 14y ago(Good) corporate services wouldn't have had slow VPN provisioning. This has nothing to do with Github, other than the fact that Github would let you end-run all rules about data protection, backups, centralized administration of user access, and everything else that you don't individually have to worry about, but the management and IT at the company you work for does.
- andreyf 14y ago> This is one reason us corporate software pushers can't use github and the likes. We need stuff to be hosted on a network we control. cringe This is very corporate reasoning in the most pejorative sense of the word. > Each hour we lose is potentially multiplied by the number of staff as we would push and pull hundreds of times a day. You clearly haven't used git. Even if github were to disappear, it would be absolutely trivial for a team to switch to an alternative central git repo for everyone to work through.
- pifflesnort 14y ago> Even if github were to disappear, it would be absolutely trivial for a team to switch to an alternative central git repo for everyone to work through. Except for all the tooling built into github that would have to be replicated locally somehow. I guess you could switch to: http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/overview http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/overview That wouldn't be "trivial", and if that's the backup plan, you may as well start by using Stash and skip github entirely.
- andreyf 14y ago> Except for all the tooling built into github that would have to be replicated locally somehow. What tooling? The issue tracker and code comments? I imagine the uptime requirements aren't >99% for those, but if you absolutely need them all the time, that's what github's enterprise service is for.
- pifflesnort 14y agoYes, the tooling that's required if you're actually collaborating instead of working in personal silos. There are better options than Github's overpriced virtual machine-based mess of an 'enterprise' offering.
- hp50g 14y agoThe issue tracker uptime is higher than the VCS in a corporate environment. Its more an ALM tool for us as it has use cases, defects, project planning running off it. That means the front line support, dev team, project management team, business analysts and management all use it 24/7 (in our case from 5 different countries). github enterprise is a crappy solution for the above as well and is hard to support and expensive too.
- avar 14y ago> I'm aware of github enterprise Which I must say is also insanely priced, particularly since you have to pay for everyone with a user account. Which means if you're wanting to use GitHub issues to replace some bugtracker the non-developers need access to you're paying full cost for everyone who might need to update a bug once or twice a year. I understand that they're trying to get everyone to use their online offering, but a lot of organizations wouldn't consider it due to a combination of not wanting to host their code externally, and GitHub's ongoing uptime issues. They might go for GitHub Enterprise, but it's crazily priced compared to other similar software (e.g. Atlassian Stash+Jira).
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- bascule 14y agoGithub Enterprise?
- tonypujals 14y agoNot really a good justification for not using GitHub. If your SVN server goes down, you're in a lot more trouble than the few times GitHub is unavailable. At least each user has a full working repo and you can always prepare alternate remotes to share commits. You are apparently already aware of GitHub for Enterprise. I suppose your organization is in full control of your data centers, private cloud, etc, but rationalizing about svn and trac completely stumped me as to your point about "corporate software pushers..."
- ams6110 14y agoWith SVN each user has a local working copy. You can't commit if the central server is down, but they're not exactly dead in the water either. You can keep working locally. If your SVN server is down for DAYS it might get to be a problem.
- nahname 14y agoIf github is down, I can still commit locally. If github is down longer I can always: git remote add online git@ddosfreedomain.com:you/yourrepo.git Why waste so much time on support infrastructure? Wouldn't it be better to spend that time doing productive work?