I'm not a GitHub apologist, but that graph isn't at scale, at all. It's massively zoomed in, with a lower band of 99.5%. It makes it look far worse than it is.

▲

pavon 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you plotted it from zero, then a horrible service and a great service would be indistinguishable. Their SLA for enterprise customers is 99.9%. The low end of that chart is 5x that amount downtime. It is a reasonable scale for the range people are concerned about and it looks bad because it is bad.

▲

tclancy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It also has 0 reflection of load. Weren't you limited to a single private repo before Microsoft took over?

	▲	otterley 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think so. Even before Microsoft acquired GitHub, you could have as many private repos as you wanted, but you couldn't have more than 3 collaborators. This change happened back in 2019: https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/new-year-new-...

▲

verdverm 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's an uptime chart and shouldn't need to show much more than the 99% range.

If you started the y-axis at zero, you wouldn't see much of anything. Logarithmic scale would still be a bit much imo.

	▲	otterley 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If you started the y-axis at zero, you wouldn't see much of anything. That's... kind of my point. As a reliability engineer, I'm disappointed in GitHub's 99.5% availability periods, especially as they impact paying customers. On the other hand, most users are non-paying users, and a 99.5% availability for a free service seems to me to be a reasonable tradeoff relative to the potential cost of improving reliability for them.