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. Especially when extensions and stuff sometimes changes hand and it's kind of hard to keep track of it, except for when something bad happens and gets news attention.
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.
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.
So confusing and so Microsoft. They love to have licensing so complicated their own sales people aren't up to date and have to rely on third party spreadsheets.
Edit:
Read that document - why do more people not do the self hosted option with GitHub Enterprise Server ?
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
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.
> Update - primary failover briefly improved performance but did not fully mitigate, we've throttled inbound traffic and are investigating upstream Vitess issues
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 started the campaign to move us from Bitbucket to Github before the Microsoft acquisition. If I knew MS would be involved, I'd have campaigned for something else. I would never recommend any Microsoft product.
It took ages for us to get permission and licenses. We only recently finished moving the last repos over and shut down Bitbucket.
If AWS offered a product like GH, I could probably unilaterally start moving to that. Any other alternative would take 3-4 years of meetings, budgets, lawyers, and other such nonsense before we could declare we'd left Github.
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.
I noticed earlier this week that my URL bar now pre-fills githubstatus.com instead of github.com when I type "gith"
A browser extension to indicate githubstatus being yellow/red:
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)
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. Especially when extensions and stuff sometimes changes hand and it's kind of hard to keep track of it, except for when something bad happens and gets news attention.
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.
Well, the alternatives are:
> It would be really cool if someone built an extension to show GitHub status live
"These already exist, why wouldn't you search before posting?"
> There exist quite a few extensions to show live GitHub status
"Why would you not post them if you know they exist?"
Or, what actually happened:
> Here are some extensions that might work for you to show live GitHub status
"Why would you recommend extensions to do this?"
Seems to me like, if your goal is to pick apart someone suggesting something, you'll find a way to.
I notice I sometimes wake up before my alarm because I get an SMS about GitHub being down.
It could be a new Microsoft feature !
i noticed it today as well - typing "g" is enough to go to the statuspage. and surprisingly often when i go there by accident, they have an incident…
For me this started happening when I type "stat" too.
Which surprised me because of the many hundreds of services I rely on regularly that also have status pages.
Good lord, hundreds?!
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.
I can tell it’s getting bad because I went to close some Safari tabs and got confused because the tab next to this was [a dupe of] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49330597.
You've a tab from 9 days ago open? Maybe you should be closing your tabs more often :p
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.
I hording my tab in case I need them later (I don't, 99% of the case)
but I always have sense of fear that I might need it someday
Fun read about Azure and having 173 agents running a node: https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize...
Probably just a coincidence that Github started to have issues after beginning their move to Azure at the end of last year.
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?
My small org has definitely had internal discussions around self-hosting gitlab. We'll see what happens.
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.
If people are happy with Actions API, that sounds great.
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.
[delayed]
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.
One of my favorite articles posted here for this year, it's a great read and really gives you an idea of just how dysfunctional azure is.
Keep in mind the seniority of the author. This was not written by a staff+ engineer.
> 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...
I think the authors of SMTP had a healthy attitude towards server uptimes:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.4....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 agree. I think it is the kind of situation that goes “gradually and then suddenly”, to quote Hemingway.
GitHub needs to completely bifurcate their enterprise/paid services from their free services at the infra level.
They have that-ish as an option: https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/dat...
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.
Thanks, this option is good to know.
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?
Do you have any meaningful level of faith in GitHub's ability to deliver on stability? At this point, I have none.
According to their status pages (e.g. https://eu.githubstatus.com/, https://us.githubstatus.com/), their Enterprise Cloud uptime for Actions is significantly higher.
“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.
https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/dat...
So confusing and so Microsoft. They love to have licensing so complicated their own sales people aren't up to date and have to rely on third party spreadsheets.
Edit:
Read that document - why do more people not do the self hosted option with GitHub Enterprise Server ?
That is a different and later product with a confusingly similar name.
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.
That's what Azure DevOps is supposed to do, but for some reason GitHub has a redundant enterprise division.
surely if they did that everybody would complain how github "lost its touch with open source since they now prioritize paid services"
enterprise is mostly separate, is it not? uptimes are significantly more reasonable on the enterprise status pages
We are in GHEC right now and GitHub Actions is not working. It's been down every time githubstatus.com says it's down.
What country did you choose to host your data in ? Could be region based
Same for us, I'm not even sure what product that other "Enterprise" status page refers to..
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 ;)
I should make a business selling git hosting. Apparently it's really easy because it doesn't have to actually work.
Sure but first you gotta be Microsoft.
Microsoft and Oracle have the market cornered on selling stuff to corporations who are relaxed about whether it works.
The historical uptime has been getting better but it is on a downwards trajectory in August:
https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/?view=all
>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.
I read that as an upstream service they own, but I agree the wording a bit weird.
Why is that a problem if it _is_ an upstream vendor problem? (assuming it is)
Must be a day ending in Y
At this point, maybe it'd be more appropriate for people to post about github to HN when githubs actually working.
https://www.dayswithoutgithubincident.com/
Certificate expired over 100 days ago
Where do you see that?
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
also seeing an expired cert:
Death by natural causes
This matches what I'm seeing.
GitHub Actions upkeep is down to one 9. I miss the days big tech aimed for four or five 9s of reliability :(
> Update - We've identified an issue with a database primary and are failing over to a replica immediately
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?
> Update - primary failover briefly improved performance but did not fully mitigate, we've throttled inbound traffic and are investigating upstream Vitess issues
Honestly?
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.
Sure. The problem is just an easy fix that nobody there thought about yet.
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.
realistically the problem is vibe coding.
Unbelievable! Just this morning I was thinking to myself, hey Github's due for a downtime soon or they are finally getting their act together.
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.
Can't wait for Anthropic's downtime tomorrow
So a normal Wednesday
Same time next week?
at this rate this is a FEATURE!
Ah so that's why I got a random "github-merge-queue Bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks"
Oh thank god my pink unicorn site is back online, its had great uptime lately so thats nice.
Was wondering why all my Actions just stopped running
I have switched off from github to my own server besides two websites that depend on gitbub integration to deploy to clpudfare pages
The joke was a good one the first, second, or third time. It's not even funny anymore...
must feel bad that at this point every dev checks github status before going to work like it was the weather app.
Scaling is a dream or theory we think we solved. Distance between ... to practice. So ... should be reconsidered again.
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.
The status page is the last one to get the update. Reddit, HN, X, company chat are all always reporting it sooner.
We can't keep living like this.
Obviously we can because we are choosing to. Because servers are scary.
Apparently we can because a lot (most?) of us are still using GitHub even after all their outages recently.
Except nobody moves to a privately hosted "gitweb"...
> 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.
2.9B commits per month; 100M action runs per day; I think they probably have some sharding.
I wonder what is this database, and why it is hard to fall-over automatically.
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.
Thanks! I didn't get the chance to manage RDBMs but that's good to know.
Possibly vitess from the latest update:
> primary failover briefly improved performance but did not fully mitigate, we've throttled inbound traffic and are investigating upstream Vitess issues
Thanks!
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.
Why shouldn't it? Most companies run on a single database server. If they can immediately fail over to a replica, that's doing it right.
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.
How can you do so badly with Git when its architecture is basically so friendly to partitioning and horizontal scaling?
Must be Wednesday
This is unacceptable for paying customers.
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.
Cursor had better not miss this opportunity.
So what’s stopping you (or your org) from leaving GitHub?
I started the campaign to move us from Bitbucket to Github before the Microsoft acquisition. If I knew MS would be involved, I'd have campaigned for something else. I would never recommend any Microsoft product.
It took ages for us to get permission and licenses. We only recently finished moving the last repos over and shut down Bitbucket.
If AWS offered a product like GH, I could probably unilaterally start moving to that. Any other alternative would take 3-4 years of meetings, budgets, lawyers, and other such nonsense before we could declare we'd left Github.
I don't like any open source solution, Codeberg and Gitlab are more of the same and Cursor isn't ready yet.
Must be a weekday
Can't even run self hosted github actions lol
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.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49379172
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49379225
https://cursor.com/origin