Brutal.
-
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.
-
@ironicbadger@techhub.social Geez, this is like what happened when they first tried to convert Hotmail to run on Windows servers.
@jmelesky @ironicbadger That was fun.
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger I expect them to start measure the SLA properly after the acquisition - such a change looks rather than a change of methodology rather than immediate effect of a merge (fuck Microsoft anyway, but not for that)
-
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
No system with million of users has 100% uptime across two years.
I suspect this is more about what and how up-time is being measured.
-
@ironicbadger Microsoft has always had a peculiar reverse Mida's touch, transforming into junk everything they touch - remember Zune, Windows Phone, etc.
@luc0x61 @ironicbadger
Minecraft -
Brutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
@ironicbadger Hi, source please. Not only it's 1st of April, but I want to click on this "Breakdown" tab
-
@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
@murb @ironicbadger The historical lookup seems to load a page for any value in the URL, but the backwards button stops working after page 40, so it looks like the earliest data provided via that portal are from July 2016
-
@murb @ironicbadger The historical lookup seems to load a page for any value in the URL, but the backwards button stops working after page 40, so it looks like the earliest data provided via that portal are from July 2016
@murb @ironicbadger There is some discussion of data validity (including the author's perspective) in this reddit thread https://old.reddit.com/r/github/comments/1rnvhs9/githubs_historic_downtime_scraped_and_plotted/
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
