Brutal.

[aburka@hachyderm.io]

@andymckay @ironicbadger what's complicated about it? it used to be good and now it's bad

[ironicbadger@techhub.social]

@a_different_jlh https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/

Sorry I should have linked to the source

[andymckay@mastodon.social]

@aburka @ironicbadger ah I was replying to a different post about it being Azure or Azure management. I did Mastodon wrong, sorry.

I will say after the acquisition when GitHub became rapidly more complex as features were added, the definition of downtime requiring a status change became a lot more strict and focused (for some teams). A bit more loose and easy beforehand.

[aburka@hachyderm.io]

@andymckay @ironicbadger yeah I can believe there are many causes, mismanagement and forced development speed as much as technology changes

[llewelly@sauropods.win]

@ironicbadger behold the jagged teeth of the dog that eat all the dogfood!

[jourei@mas.to]

@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.

[cinebox@masto.hackers.town]

@Tubsta @ironicbadger iirc they were like halfway through rolling it out when Microsoft bought them lmao

[mgedmin@floss.social]

@Jourei @ironicbadger Move fast and break things!

[thunfisch@chaos.social]

@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@mastodon.social]

@ironicbadger Cheers

[martinvermeer@fediscience.org]

@ironicbadger The inverse Midas touch

[odr_k4tana@infosec.exchange]

@kaito02 @DaveMWilburn @ironicbadger works 50% of the time, all the time.

[ingoschi@digitalcourage.social]

@ironicbadger searching for "github downtime 2016" I don't trust the old values

[simonwaight@mastodon.online]

@ironicbadger interested if you can map that to growth/shrinkage in users and/or volume or data being used.

[luceos@fosstodon.org]

@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.

[hikhvar@norden.social]

@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.

@ironicbadger

[miyuru@ipv6.social]

@Tubsta Yep still 0% uptime from my IPv6 only server point of view.

@ironicbadger

[muan@mastodon.social]

@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.

[follpvosten@karp.lol]

@ironicbadger lmao yeah that checks out

[zetasyanthis@dragon.style]

@ironicbadger

And this is why we keep local repo copies for production repos.