Brutal.
-
@ironicbadger Could anyone explain to me, how is this possible?
I would imagine they would keep things running on the original hardware etc. which I wouldn't expect to fluctuate like this.@Jourei @ironicbadger Move fast and break things!
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger @isotopp what’s the data source behind it? Official status page? Because that has been notoriously inaccurate long before microslop took over.
-
@a_different_jlh https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/
Sorry I should have linked to the source
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger The inverse Midas touch
-
@DaveMWilburn @ironicbadger get the sweet 55.5555555% availability
@kaito02 @DaveMWilburn @ironicbadger works 50% of the time, all the time.
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger searching for "github downtime 2016" I don't trust the old values
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger interested if you can map that to growth/shrinkage in users and/or volume or data being used.
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger wait, they went from 100% uptime on their own servers,which were constantly on, to 99,5% as lowest uptime on a scalable infrastructure? That's 3,5 hours max spread over a month. And you're taking the piss on them for that? That's wild. Maybe focus on their link to Israel in the Gaza war or something.
-
@ironicbadger Could anyone explain to me, how is this possible?
I would imagine they would keep things running on the original hardware etc. which I wouldn't expect to fluctuate like this.@Jourei AFAIK they started to use Azure more and more. That would explain the initial stability after the buy event. Also they might have shifted from stability to ship feature after feature. Before Microsoft bought them, their feature set was rather stable.
-
@Tubsta Yep still 0% uptime from my IPv6 only server point of view.
-
@ironicbadger Could anyone explain to me, how is this possible?
I would imagine they would keep things running on the original hardware etc. which I wouldn't expect to fluctuate like this.@Jourei @ironicbadger No, when MSFT came in they tried to change everything at once. If anything services fee can be paid back into MSFT pipelines instead of other service providers, they wanted it yesterday. They brought in more than 1000 people, which was more than all of GitHub at the time, to dilute the original teams.
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger lmao yeah that checks out
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
And this is why we keep local repo copies for production repos.
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger Microsoft has always had a peculiar reverse Mida's touch, transforming into junk everything they touch - remember Zune, Windows Phone, etc.
-
@ironicbadger @isotopp what’s the data source behind it? Official status page? Because that has been notoriously inaccurate long before microslop took over.
-
@ironicbadger Could anyone explain to me, how is this possible?
I would imagine they would keep things running on the original hardware etc. which I wouldn't expect to fluctuate like this.@Jourei @ironicbadger "restructuring"
They fired huge chunks of the existing staff and terrified the rest.
-
@ironicbadger wait, they went from 100% uptime on their own servers,which were constantly on, to 99,5% as lowest uptime on a scalable infrastructure? That's 3,5 hours max spread over a month. And you're taking the piss on them for that? That's wild. Maybe focus on their link to Israel in the Gaza war or something.
@luceos @ironicbadger Critical services tend to measure availability (informally) in "nines". 99.999% is good enough for most purposes; run your critical system at 99.9% availability and your contract is immediately over.
3.5h downtime in a month is ridiculous. It's teenager-computer-in-a-closet availability.
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger is that because people left, or tech investments stopped, or something like bits of housing were moved to azure?
-
@a_different_jlh https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/
Sorry I should have linked to the source
@ironicbadger @a_different_jlh when did they really start measuring though, the source of the graph also shows data before the invention of even git itself: https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime?page=200
-
@ironicbadger @isotopp Thanks! So it is indeed the data from the official status page. Yes, since microslop took over reliability has gotten even worse, but it was bad before as well. They just often did not mark the services as down on the status page, even though they were.
So, the general conclusion here is still correct, but the data for the visualization is not reliable IMO.
