Another useful disclaimer: all of these lets the developers push updates to your computer as they wish by default in most setups, these days you might want to decrease that kind of attack surface and just check the status in the official website when "git push" suddenly stop working.
I'm also not sure why you'd share links to software you don't even recommend yourself? Isn't it better to just not share that then? I think others could use search engine/LLM too if they need whatever, but most generally expect things shared in the comments here to actually at least have been looked at by the person sharing them.
I have tabs from like 6 months ago. Modern browsers have gotten pretty good at hibernating unused tabs and restore when needed. And this website is extremely light, it gets restored in milliseconds.
Can't believe this is my highest upvoted comment ever lol go check out my open source agent IDE if you are bored while you wait for GitHub to come back https://getness.dev
Azure's going to suffocate github. I'm curious to see what's next. Will self-hosting the code repository come back in vogue or will another social-coding platform take off?
I used to work in a small independent team of 30 people within a large corp, half of which was dev. We used to run our own gitlab on-prem, our CI/CD was also on-prem. It worked perfectly, never had down time, devops guy could configure them on-demand to our needs. Me (and some other guys) also jumped in times to times to help (mostly just ssh into the servers for health check, disk partition, etc.). Then we grew (the biz team, dev was the same) and some new PMs with fancy Ivy League degrees came in and pushed for on-cloud Bitbucket. Things went to shit pretty fast after that ... Our codebase was only a few hundred thousands lines, there was only like hundreds of commits per day, the servers our git + CI/CD lived on never saturated ...
We should worry less about what everyone else uses, and more about what we use. I'm self-hosting Gitea and thinking of upgrading to Forgejo. What are you using?
If you're actively considering self hosting, I recommend giving forgejo a try. The experience is much more similar to what GitHub offers, actions API is nearly identical to name one similarity of which there are many. Moving essentially becomes one prompt and a coffee later for a small team.
probably not. The people that have done it before or willing to do it now is probably a very % of the commit volume, they leaving wouldn't change much, probably not gonna even move the exponential growth needle.
> Probably just a coincidence that Github started to have issues after beginning their move to Azure at the end of last year.
Right.
I'd like to think that Azure has improved in a meaningful way in the past half a decade or so... but it has not. Maybe less inexplicable 400 errors in random API calls, I guess.
And yet Microsoft keeps posting record growth. Unbelievable.
Things can go wrong, but really, its been a lot and we're normalizing that to an unhealthy degree...
I wonder if it was down that much, if users would get credits the way we pay when we use the services - its kind of ridiculous for a critical service to be down that much and all we do is "ah okay, its just github". Like, as if that was normal to be down that much...
At the time, most email was either local to the host (big mainframe in the basement) or transferred once a day through scheduled dial-up connections during off-peak phone hours
I don't think it's been "normalized". Github uptime is literally a joke in the tech community. They have first mover advantage and a behemoth behind them so they're not going away, but everyone knows how shit it's uptime is. It takes time for organizations to move away from services like this but I would bet anything that many are starting to try to move away, as well as new companies knowing they shouldn't use the service.
I'm told that GitHub has asserted to us that moving to this model means we would not be exposed to github.com outages. It's not at feature parity with github.com though.
We're currently on "GitHub Enterprise Cloud" on github.com and are affected by this outage (even though we use self-hosted runners!), but we're not on "GitHub Enterprise Cloud with data residency" on *.ghe.com, which I understand is/may not be affected by this outage?
“GitHub Enterprise Cloud with data residency” is hosted on separate infrastructure and dedicated subdomains under *.ghe.com. It’s been around since November 2024z
It’s not the same thing as GitHub Enterprise Cloud hosted on the shared global network on github.com.
Just to be clear, I am on Github Enterprise, and am also experiencing this disruption both privately and publicly on every org and project I have access to.
That's what I don't understand. They could mitigate their name so much if they just split free/paid/enterprise. It's already shown that enterprise is much more estable and is largely unaffected from service disruptions. Why don't they go one more layer? For sure it's worth the extra complexity.
There is no such thing as "just split" there is 20+ years of legacy decisions and even if the split is relatively clean it is still probably 1 years work for 200 people for maybe a marginal improvement.
The real money is going to go towards, "make this all more reliable".
Depending on the cause of the current issues, that move would likely cause more harm to paid services than good.
Their last postmortem made clear that their challenges are operational. Scale puts pressure on operation, but it's not what blocks them from keeping up.
Doubling the operation doubles the operational challenges.
It would probably be better to run projects with extremely high commit/merge frequency on a separate "slop infrastructure", basically like MMOs move cheaters to their own servers ;)
> Update - primary failover briefly improved performance but did not fully mitigate, we've throttled inbound traffic and are investigating upstream Vitess issues
>Update - primary failover briefly improved performance but did not fully mitigate, we've throttled inbound traffic and are investigating upstream Vitess issues
And now they're blaming their upstream vendor! Embarrassing stuff to be writing on a public page.
Vitess is a distributed mysql database. Github could very well be managing it entirely on their own. I have only seen people managing their own vitess, its entirely open source afaik.
If the problem is scalability, just rate limit git commands on free accounts already. Nobody realistically need to push multiple times per minute, and that alone is bound to trickle down to anything that triggers on commits and pushes.
My point is: they blame it on scale. If that's the story they want us to believe, then they have to explain WHY such a simple fix isn't possible.
There may be non technical reasons for it, even: legal, or PR, but if they want me to believe the "scalability excuse" they need to convince me they're trying.
I don’t know, but typically when orgs don’t make logical decisions, it’s because internal politics are incentivizing something else.
I suspect that rate-limits would fly in the face of a lot of narratives like “Azure is ready for hyperscale”. And getting eyes on Github is probably a part of their Copilot product strategy.
I spent a bunch of time during the outage last week setting up forgejo and some custom action runners. At the time, I was worried I was wasting time and getting distracted from my real work...alas, I guess not. Gonna finish up that work and complete the move today.
Notice odd behavior on GitHub. Get gaslit by a green status page. Notice more odd behavior on GitHub. Think it must be me this time. See unusual action queuing. Ah, an incident on the status page. Go for a walk and check HN on my phone. The AI SDLC.
> We've identified an issue with a database primary and are failing over to a replica immediately
This is why it's hard to take GitHub seriously. How can a single database cause an outage for everyone? This is amateur stuff. Have they no sharding or partitioning internally? Paying customers should not be impacted in the same way as free ones are.
RDBMS replication and failover is way more difficult and manual than anyone would like. You can't just set up two postgres, tell them they're clustered and have it basically work; at a minimum you have to design the client to somehow know which one is currently the master, or use some sort of proxy (which becomes its own SPOF).
RDBMS integrity basically requires that one master server is responsible for the whole data set and other servers may replicate from it. And it usually doesn't wait for a quorum of replicas, just for one, because the design is to recover from a hardware failure, not a network partition, although that could be fixed at the cost of increased latency.
> primary failover briefly improved performance but did not fully mitigate, we've throttled inbound traffic and are investigating upstream Vitess issues
Did you not read it? Just because there's a database primary doesn't mean there is 1 primary database. There's likely man redundancies and they have issue with how they're allocating traffic to them which is in turn causing an issue with how much traffic redundancies are receiving.
Either 1) infrastructure for paying and non paying customers must be separated, 2) excessive load must be ended by not offering the free tier anymore or 3) they must fix their broken monolith but they are seemingly incapable of doing so.
It very well may be that the paying customers are actually the problem. Those can actually afford to throw enough money at AI providers to significantly increase the number of commits & other actions.
I have been very happy with github for _years_. Lately, not so much. Now I want to try a self-hosting alternative again. I tried gitlab years ago (pre-pandemic, IIRC), and it wasn't for me (they had _serious_ security issues as well, which of course didn't affect my self-hosting thing, but still...).
So - where do we stand in August 2026?
*EDIT:* No, I don't want anything related to Felon Musk.
Another outage, this time with GitHub Actions. Last time that happened was 5 days ago [0] and another outage happened on the postmortem announcement as well. [1]
While GitHub is imploding itself, maybe you should think about self-hosting.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/is-github-down/lcfo...
A VSCode extension:
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=RuslanRy...
Firefox:
https://github.com/matagus/github-status-checker
Caveat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49450924
(disclaimer: none of these are recommended by me to use - merely sharing to build on for this discussion)
I'm also not sure why you'd share links to software you don't even recommend yourself? Isn't it better to just not share that then? I think others could use search engine/LLM too if they need whatever, but most generally expect things shared in the comments here to actually at least have been looked at by the person sharing them.
Which surprised me because of the many hundreds of services I rely on regularly that also have status pages.
Uptime reliability is nkt additive, it's multiplicative, sometimes even logarithmic.
Downtime of 99% and 99% is 98.1%. I hope almost all those services are non-prod related.
Probably just a coincidence that Github started to have issues after beginning their move to Azure at the end of last year.
I’m not happy with the Actions API. I think Gitlab’s cicd design is much better, and I’m not fighting it all the time when I use it.
Right.
I'd like to think that Azure has improved in a meaningful way in the past half a decade or so... but it has not. Maybe less inexplicable 400 errors in random API calls, I guess.
And yet Microsoft keeps posting record growth. Unbelievable.
I wonder if it was down that much, if users would get credits the way we pay when we use the services - its kind of ridiculous for a critical service to be down that much and all we do is "ah okay, its just github". Like, as if that was normal to be down that much...
I'm told that GitHub has asserted to us that moving to this model means we would not be exposed to github.com outages. It's not at feature parity with github.com though.
We're currently on "GitHub Enterprise Cloud" on github.com and are affected by this outage (even though we use self-hosted runners!), but we're not on "GitHub Enterprise Cloud with data residency" on *.ghe.com, which I understand is/may not be affected by this outage?
It’s not the same thing as GitHub Enterprise Cloud hosted on the shared global network on github.com.
https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/dat...
The real money is going to go towards, "make this all more reliable".
Their last postmortem made clear that their challenges are operational. Scale puts pressure on operation, but it's not what blocks them from keeping up.
Doubling the operation doubles the operational challenges.
https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/?view=all
Common Name (CN) www.dayswithoutgithubincident.com
Organization (O) <Not Part Of Certificate>
Common Name (CN) YR1
Organization (O) Let's Encrypt
Issued On Monday, August 10, 2026 at 10:01:51 AM
Expires On Sunday, November 8, 2026 at 9:01:50 AM
Seems like a weird thing to post on a status page. Shouldn't this have happened automatically and therefore precluded the need to inform users of it?
And now they're blaming their upstream vendor! Embarrassing stuff to be writing on a public page.
If the problem is scalability, just rate limit git commands on free accounts already. Nobody realistically need to push multiple times per minute, and that alone is bound to trickle down to anything that triggers on commits and pushes.
There may be non technical reasons for it, even: legal, or PR, but if they want me to believe the "scalability excuse" they need to convince me they're trying.
I suspect that rate-limits would fly in the face of a lot of narratives like “Azure is ready for hyperscale”. And getting eyes on Github is probably a part of their Copilot product strategy.
This is why it's hard to take GitHub seriously. How can a single database cause an outage for everyone? This is amateur stuff. Have they no sharding or partitioning internally? Paying customers should not be impacted in the same way as free ones are.
RDBMS integrity basically requires that one master server is responsible for the whole data set and other servers may replicate from it. And it usually doesn't wait for a quorum of replicas, just for one, because the design is to recover from a hardware failure, not a network partition, although that could be fixed at the cost of increased latency.
> primary failover briefly improved performance but did not fully mitigate, we've throttled inbound traffic and are investigating upstream Vitess issues
Maybe you expect that part of GitHub to have a scale where a single database can't handle it, but evidently that isn't true.
We can criticise them for not splitting up free and paid customers but again, most companies don't do that.
Either 1) infrastructure for paying and non paying customers must be separated, 2) excessive load must be ended by not offering the free tier anymore or 3) they must fix their broken monolith but they are seemingly incapable of doing so.
So - where do we stand in August 2026?
*EDIT:* No, I don't want anything related to Felon Musk.
While GitHub is imploding itself, maybe you should think about self-hosting.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49379172
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49379225