I think you need to broaden your focus here - I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories.

Microsoft bought Github and migrated to Azure, which is explains the findings. The query performance was fine before they started serving from Azure.

I mean honestly, as though there isn't one single person competent enough to read some logs and horizontally scale a few read only dbs to meet demand? That's not it

▲

AlexB138 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I think you need to broaden your focus here - I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories.

This is the opposite of my recollection, actually. I distinctly remember having conversations about Github struggling to scale well before MS was involved, and people claiming that MS had somehow saved Github because it had stabilized and begun adding features again.

> The query performance was fine before they started serving from Azure.

This may be correct though. The Azure migration seems more aligned with the timeline of struggling to scale.

	▲	the_sleaze_ 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I distinctly remember having conversations about Github struggling to scale well before MS was involved Do you have any sources to back your claim up? At what point did Github fail to scale their search endpoints? > This may be correct It is.

▲

nvme0n1p1 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know why this is downvoted. The data backs you up: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/

▲

evanelias 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm skeptical about that page's accuracy. For example, if you go to the breakdown tab, it shows Actions having 100% availability when the graph starts (Apr 2016), yet Actions didn't even exist until late 2018, and wasn't GA until a full year after that. So if the math behind the "average" tab is treating NULLs as 100% uptime, this just isn't a correct measurement.

The page also notes it obtains its data from the official status page, but big tech companies have been known to under-report outages. My general sense is they've gotten better about this in recent years; if so, that means historical data will give an erroneously rosy picture of uptime.

▲

the_sleaze_ 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I think we can agree the data is correct enough to ascribe a trend with a strong statistical significance no? Enough to draw a conclusion

▲

evanelias 5 hours ago | parent [-]

We can clearly draw a conclusion that their availability is getting worse, but that's not what your original comment claimed.

You said "I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories", but my memories differ (as do other commenters), and the accuracy of the supporting data seems questionable.

	▲	the_sleaze_ 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		ok.

▲

philistine 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, are any of the other forges, which I presume are also seeing logarithmic increase in commits, also failing as hard as Github?

	▲	the_sleaze_ 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I totally agree, you should expect a similar increase and degradation in Gitlab which we do not.