As others have said, Github's postmortems are always great.
But frankly, I'd rather they have better uptime. Every couple months is too much. I pay them. My work pays them.
If their CEO is serious about zero downtime, how about he offers his paying customers a credit for time they cannot access the service?
> I pay them. My work pays them.
Hmm. You pay them to uphold a contract. What does that contract say about SLAs and availability? Probably the same as the TOS that I agreed to when paying and those specifically say:
If you negotiate, you might get better terms and guarantees, for example with github enterprise. You might also have to pay substantially more for those.
I understand, it sucks when github is down. But we all get what we pay for and we all don't want to pay for more. And yes, I do have clients that meticulously mirror all their dependencies from outside sources and spend significant money on this - money that pays off in exactly these situations.
Huh? You don't have to use Github Enterprise (self-hosted) to get an SLA. Github Business, which is hosted on github.com has a 99.95% uptime SLA: https://github.com/pricing
An upgrade from Team to Business is "only" a 2.3x price bump per dev. I have no experience with this though, my team is still of the Team plan and thus suffered from the outage today.
Huh indeed. 99.95% uptime -- AKA: three and a half nines. My quick math tells me that 99.95% uptime equates to a downtime of ~4:23/yr. If github is down for an hour once every few months, I'd say they're likely well within their stated SLA.
They are? https://status.github.com/messages/2017-01-18 has a bunch of major service outages and no link to any post-mortem.
The vague rumour always seems to be 'DDoS attack I guess' but there's very little in the way of formal reporting as far as I can tell...
My problem with a credit is that it never even comes close to what I'm losing in income. An ISP is an excellent example. I might get a $10 credit for 24 hours of downtime. I'm charging slightly more per hour than that... /s
Maybe switch to bitbucket or other competition for a while?
switched to gitlab a few weeks ago, didn't notice the outage until I saw this thread.
I use VSTS, it's actually improved much over the years!
Gitea's pretty good if you just need a GitHub-like experience (eg good UX) git repo host:
https://gitea.io
If the price of the service working (or not working) is disproportionately large compared to the price of your lost business, that's a problem at your end: you needed to calculate the risk vs return for redundancy.
Eg, if your Internet costs $100/mo, but you'd lose $100/hour when it's down during business hours, buy a fallback connection from a competing ISP. ;)
> a competing ISP
Wow! That actually exists in some places? ;-)
Infrastructure so often becomes a monopoly. I can't pay a competing bridge service to drive to work quicker, I can't pay a competing gas company to deliver gas via different pipelines to my house. And I can't pay a competing electric company that uses different wires.
I actually am lucky enough to live in a city where there are many competing high speed ISPs. But guess what? I've paid for fallback connections in the past and when one goes down, the other goes down, so I go out to lunch and see the guys working on the wires in the cabinet down the street. The wires that both my ISPs share. I suppose I could get a satellite ISP? That latency. True redundancy for infrastructure is actually very expensive in most cases.
Use on prem.
https://enterprise.github.com/faq