I think it's commendable that they're not limiting access to the site or (intentionally) throttling newcomers. Yes, they need to get this figured out, but a little sympathy goes a long way. I personally wish them the best and hope their on-call people can go back to getting normal amounts of sleep soon.
Is their uptime acceptable? No. But personal attacks aren’t necessary or constructive.
https://this.weekinsecurity.com/microsoft-wins-lamest-vendor...
I gather that you have intimate and deep knowledge on the teams and the problems they try to solve there.
And 99% of the bread that I get is good but 1% of the loaves, they forgot to add flour. Consistently, for years, they always have loaves missing a key ingredient that I still end up paying for.
I can be pretty sure that BreadHub have a pretty major internal issue, and should probably be questioning their competence, regardless of their “scale”, and without any knowledge of the “problems they’re solving”
I’m saying that GH is operating at a huge scale with (probably) lots of technical debt and a forced migration to new infrastructure.
I would be (and am) highly critical of leadership. I’m not going to make strong assertions about ICs without knowing their context. I’ve worked at a company with a sterling reputation for engineering excellence where brilliant ICs were kneecapped by poor leadership.
I think a lot of us, at one point or another in our careers, have worked with potato leadership that can be short-sighted or political. It isn’t a comment on the engineers.
That is an active choice they are making, over and instead of any reliability for the rest of their users.
It is a problem they are embracing, and actively encouraging, for themselves.
I don't think this is commendable at all. I give GitHub a lot of money and I'm tired of it being wasted with downtime.
I don't know the architecture or any of that, but I feel like there could be (and it's not like they would've really known this until the last year or two with the massive spike) separate infrastructure for paid users/orgs vs free the same way they make the distinction with enterprise.
I get the massive load changes that they are under over the last two years, but why does a bunch of vibe coded slop take down the same resources that my company pays for every single month and has for years? I imagine properly splitting that out would be an absolute headache and not worthwhile for them vs stabilizing the rest of the service, but damn it sucks when I get blocked at work because GH is down.
Of course it is not free of all management but for our use case it is working.
There are hiccups with the CI runners from time time but nothing major and we have another machine in another rack that serves as a backup which can be brought up ~< 20 minutes.
I know companies have long since tossed their expertise for hosting their own stuff in favour of SaaS but at some point its hard to beat the up time of a single machine.
1. Github has enterprise users who paid for the service, their day job requires Github to be available and working
2. Github has generous free tier which is the one which is exploring a lot more with the AI generated code.
It is a complexity in itself but the traffic should have been separated, the free users should not be allowed to bring down Github for enterprise customers (Just to clarify, I am free user myself). And if they do not have capacity it would have been perfectly fine to push back or throttle new users/repositories.
But I think they’re in a tough spot. GitHub has historically been a huge supporter, proponent, and provider for open source projects. Engineers are difficult customers, to say the least, and the community would likely freak tf out of the segmented traffic.
The logical, pragmatic, and justifiable answer doesn’t always align with your market.
They are in a tough spot cause they want to continuously ingest all the data to train their LLMs. Any fork or decentralization at large scale of git is going to impact the training pipeline.
They decided they needed to capture the whole open source ecosystem by turning open source work into social networking... on a proprietary platform (because open source is great, especially when it's others' software). That was before they joined Microsoft.
And then Microsoft pushed AI everywhere, including on GitHub itself with copilot.
I would have liked if they had left the open source projects alone and didn't create that FOMO for not using them.
I have no sympathy.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. I like AI. I work for an AI company. Still, Microsoft aggressively pushed GitHub users toward Copilot. They don't get to do that and complain about increased volume from AI-generated changes.
No Copilot + reasonable operation: the way things were
Copilot + reasonable operation: Well done!
No Copilot + being overwhelmed by AI commits: Sympathy.
Copilot + being overwhelmed by AI commits: "Where did that petard come from that's hoisting us?"
I can have sympathy for the humans caught in the crossfire but only managing one nine of availability on a commercial service is not acceptable.
Yes, that is scale. And yes, that's not actual requests per second. But it's the sort of scale that big (and even mid-sized) tech has known how to deal with for decades. Microsoft doesn't have an excuse.
No.
Their leadership went all in on AI and in the last blog post essentially admitted some missing test coverage for a critical path. Time to learn lessons and fix your vibe coded shitslop and stop using "user graph go up" as some kind of excuse.
But we pay enterprise license and GitHub is a big dependency in our software flow.
If this continues to be a problem as an enterprise product they need to do something. Otherwise theyre are going to to start losing business
We certainly do not.
As I said before (and it was not a popular comment), it's easy to be an "armchair quarterback," with these services, as I think the brittleness was already baked in, and just waiting for the right time to crack. The only true way to have a robust platform, is to design something that will scale, from the start, and many startups don't do that, because they are feverishly trying to get out an MVP; even if it is a mess of bubblegum and baling wire.
They always say "We'll get it done right, once we get funding," but that never happens.
But my sympathy is limited by the fact that MS paid a lot of money for this, quite a while ago, and that is one company that knows all about issues of scale. They should have seen this coming.
This is a multi billion dollar corporation. History of robbing and stealing from others of their labor or IP. History of enshittifying once great services.
A restaurant makes pizzas. They suddenly get 100x more popular. They can't make 100x more pizzas. But they are still taking orders from 100x more people. Not only are they not getting enough pizzas delivered that they took orders for, but in their rush to make and deliver more pizzas, they set the kitchen on fire, which makes an even longer wait for pizzas.
When the pizza you ordered doesn't get delivered, do you have sympathy for the restaurant? Or do you tell them to stop taking orders they can't fill and try not to set the kitchen on fire?
Now consider the pizza restaurant has 21 billion dollars in cash, is taking your money, and not giving you pizza.
I used to be on-call in a high-traffic environment where single customers pushed more bits than entire nations. I chose the role. I didn't want people's sympathy, if anything, I wanted them to complain to management.
If it gets too bad they can quit. Maybe that would be for the best, just wear the thing down until it outright fails and no one wants to touch it. One less bullshit service sucking all of the oxygen out.
I've started suggesting to my CTO that we move to something else because we do pay the Github bills and yet we are also affected by other people's activity. Avoiding that is not a hard engineering problem for an alternative.
A world where a record amount of code is pushed to GH but a large amount of paying customers leave would be "cooked"
I was basically given the same response that blizzard gave that question; "you think you want that but you don't".
1125 incidents / 126 months ≈ 8.9 incidents per month, not 24
still terrible, but why such an obvious error in the first sentence...
const incidents = e.detail.incidents;
// ...snip...
const now = new Date();
const threeMonthsAgo = new Date(now);
threeMonthsAgo.setMonth(threeMonthsAgo.getMonth() - 3);
// ...snip...
var currentFreq = recentIncidents.length / 3; // <- We out here, smoking these guns with our homeboy Claude
// ...snip...
var earliest = null;
for (var j = 0; j < incidents.length; j++) {
var dd = new Date(incidents[j].started_at); // <- eventually incidents[j].started_at is "2016-03-01T07:07:37.000Z"
if (!earliest || dd < earliest) earliest = dd;
}
// ...snip...
document.getElementById('n-since').textContent = earliest
? earliest.toLocaleDateString('en-US', { month: 'long', year: 'numeric' })
: '?';
document.getElementById('n-rate').textContent = Math.round(currentFreq * 10) / 10;
#n-rate has nothing to do with the #n-since month, it's just the last trailing 3 months. And even then, it's sort of underbaked? It's moving the date back by 3 calendar months not taking into account differing numbers of days, so it'll under-report short months.
I wouldn't trust the stats here.
Edit: whoops, author updated the template while I was writing this! It now says "Over the last 3 months", though that's still calendar months.
GitHub has had 1125 incidents since March 2016. Over the last 3 months, they've averaged 24 incidents per month
That worst day is likely an overlapping incidents accounting issue; I tried to account for overlapping incidents in another view but probably failed to port it over there.
Should be fixed soon!
Looks like they fixed it already
Github was bought by Microsoft, whether they wanted to acknowledge that internally or not. Microsoft went deep on LLMs, and specifically on LLMs for coding use cases. They must have recognized that LLM generated code and PRs would effectively DDoS GitHub.
I can only assume they simply didn't care, likely driven by greed.
Migrating to something else has been raised as a concern during every engagement with clients and prospective clients in the past year.
"Do you use GitHub?"
"Yes though we'd like to move to something else, we just don't know what yet."
As soon as the next big thing shows up, they're done. And they know it.
1. Hates the status quo
2. Only uses a handful of the 10,000 features the status quo has
3. Uses a different handful than everyone else
Because that model kept Excel as the center of buisnesses around the world for 30 years and counting
In reality, Excel is the only reason Microsoft still exists.
Excel is how they lure you in. Excel really is the best spreadsheet, its the only one every doc you are sent works with, but also the one people know inside and out. And if you are into Pivot tables, PowerQuery, etc there is just no escaping it. You are utterly stuck.
But here is how they get you: its not much more to rent the whole office suite compared to just Excel. And as long as you are into it that far, Outlook and Teams are much cheaper than GSuite + Slack. And still...okish? No, not really. But we pretend. And it wouldn't happen without Excel.
https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/the-august-17...
I'm a big fan of Github Actions and I think people are often a little too harsh on it, but it's clear that it's sad that it's come at such a high cost to the platform's stability
GitHub Actions is god-awful. Have you ever used any other CI tools?
And it may be even worse in EDT, which is currently in effect!
I was ready to click...
This is why I foresaw that centralizing everything to GitHub was just generally a bad idea 6 years ago. [0]
Now that there is no CEO of GitHub, there is no point to GitHub improving.
