DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
57% Positive
Analyzed from 2994 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#github#com#https#enterprise#status#why#more#self#down#move
Discussion (135 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
As an example:
$> gh omens
reckon github's about to go full bin chicken
—-
You can find it here: https://github.com/sandermvanvliet-stack/gh-omens
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/is-github-down/lcfo...
A VSCode extension:
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=RuslanRy...
Firefox:
https://github.com/matagus/github-status-checker
Caveat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49450924
(disclaimer: none of these are recommended by me to use - merely sharing to build on for this discussion)
I'm also not sure why you'd share links to software you don't even recommend yourself? Isn't it better to just not share that then? I think others could use search engine/LLM too if they need whatever, but most generally expect things shared in the comments here to actually at least have been looked at by the person sharing them.
> It would be really cool if someone built an extension to show GitHub status live
"These already exist, why wouldn't you search before posting?"
> There exist quite a few extensions to show live GitHub status
"Why would you not post them if you know they exist?"
Or, what actually happened:
> Here are some extensions that might work for you to show live GitHub status
"Why would you recommend extensions to do this?"
Seems to me like, if your goal is to pick apart someone suggesting something, you'll find a way to.
Which surprised me because of the many hundreds of services I rely on regularly that also have status pages.
Uptime reliability is nkt additive, it's multiplicative, sometimes even logarithmic.
Downtime of 99% and 99% is 98.1%. I hope almost all those services are non-prod related.
It could be a new Microsoft feature !
Probably just a coincidence that Github started to have issues after beginning their move to Azure at the end of last year.
I thought I was cynical enough about goings on at Microsoft / Azure, but apparently not.
Right.
I'd like to think that Azure has improved in a meaningful way in the past half a decade or so... but it has not. Maybe less inexplicable 400 errors in random API calls, I guess.
And yet Microsoft keeps posting record growth. Unbelievable.
I wonder if it was down that much, if users would get credits the way we pay when we use the services - its kind of ridiculous for a critical service to be down that much and all we do is "ah okay, its just github". Like, as if that was normal to be down that much...
I'm told that GitHub has asserted to us that moving to this model means we would not be exposed to github.com outages. It's not at feature parity with github.com though.
We're currently on "GitHub Enterprise Cloud" on github.com and are affected by this outage (even though we use self-hosted runners!), but we're not on "GitHub Enterprise Cloud with data residency" on *.ghe.com, which I understand is/may not be affected by this outage?
This has been a bad time, though. I'm ready to move back to self-hosting if they can't get it together or we move to GHDR and it's still bad.
It’s not the same thing as GitHub Enterprise Cloud hosted on the shared global network on github.com.
https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/dat...
Edit:
Read that document - why do more people not do the self hosted option with GitHub Enterprise Server ?
The real money is going to go towards, "make this all more reliable".
Their last postmortem made clear that their challenges are operational. Scale puts pressure on operation, but it's not what blocks them from keeping up.
Doubling the operation doubles the operational challenges.
And now they're blaming their upstream vendor! Embarrassing stuff to be writing on a public page.
Common Name (CN) www.dayswithoutgithubincident.com
Organization (O) <Not Part Of Certificate>
Common Name (CN) YR1
Organization (O) Let's Encrypt
Issued On Monday, August 10, 2026 at 10:01:51 AM
Expires On Sunday, November 8, 2026 at 9:01:50 AM
https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/?view=all
Seems like a weird thing to post on a status page. Shouldn't this have happened automatically and therefore precluded the need to inform users of it?
It's a shame that this is happening and hopefully Microsoft do the right thing and spin it back off into a private entity with its own leadership and resources.
Also, self-serving: this is why the whole "big company means better" thing is bs. We need to aggressively go back to a culture that rewards and supports independent teams who actually give a damn about what they're building and responsible for. Otherwise, this is just a preview of everything everywhere in a few years.
If the problem is scalability, just rate limit git commands on free accounts already. Nobody realistically need to push multiple times per minute, and that alone is bound to trickle down to anything that triggers on commits and pushes.
There may be non technical reasons for it, even: legal, or PR, but if they want me to believe the "scalability excuse" they need to convince me they're trying.
I suspect that rate-limits would fly in the face of a lot of narratives like “Azure is ready for hyperscale”. And getting eyes on Github is probably a part of their Copilot product strategy.
This is why it's hard to take GitHub seriously. How can a single database cause an outage for everyone? This is amateur stuff. Have they no sharding or partitioning internally? Paying customers should not be impacted in the same way as free ones are.
RDBMS integrity basically requires that one master server is responsible for the whole data set and other servers may replicate from it. And it usually doesn't wait for a quorum of replicas, just for one, because the design is to recover from a hardware failure, not a network partition, although that could be fixed at the cost of increased latency.
> primary failover briefly improved performance but did not fully mitigate, we've throttled inbound traffic and are investigating upstream Vitess issues
Maybe you expect that part of GitHub to have a scale where a single database can't handle it, but evidently that isn't true.
We can criticise them for not splitting up free and paid customers but again, most companies don't do that.
But that doesn't fit into the "spend gobs of money as fast as possible so you can be a hypothetical feudal lord in a sci-fi dystopia novel you read when you were twelve" line of thinking.
Either 1) infrastructure for paying and non paying customers must be separated, 2) excessive load must be ended by not offering the free tier anymore or 3) they must fix their broken monolith but they are seemingly incapable of doing so.
It took ages for us to get permission and licenses. We only recently finished moving the last repos over and shut down Bitbucket.
If AWS offered a product like GH, I could probably unilaterally start moving to that. Any other alternative would take 3-4 years of meetings, budgets, lawyers, and other such nonsense before we could declare we'd left Github.
So - where do we stand in August 2026?
*EDIT:* No, I don't want anything related to Felon Musk.
While GitHub is imploding itself, maybe you should think about self-hosting.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49379172
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49379225