"We are committed to fixing these problems, as long as it doesn't involve buying things other than AI computers, hiring humans, or using non-Microsoft products."

Calling Azure the solution to this problem when it is in fact the source of most of these problems is just fantastic doublespeak.

Github is ripe for disruption and I hope it is disrupted soon.

  "Since April, monthly commits have grown from 1.4 billion to 2.9 billion. "

Wow, that is some incredible growth in a really short time.

> Errors in those services triggered a client-side retry loop that increased traffic during recovery.

The worst outages I've been part of always have some version of this :(

Reading this port-mortem / plan shocks me, this doesn't look like a service that has been serving high-throughput services for more than a decade. In fact it is almost like they've barely started. It seems the solution has been capacity, capacity rather than architectural or data changes.

> Our next milestone is an architecture that scales read capacity linearly with the number of readers, enabling unlimited read operations

How do you not have read-replicas / read caches at this scale yet? Which is what I am reading from this statement. You can of course get really far with sharding and whatnot. But at some point it might become worth it to engineer your data into a model that scales better.

Sorry to suggest this but if they charged everyone say $1/mo. it would absolutely help the massive surge from AI coding they seem to have had.

I don't like paying for free stuff but gh certainly worth it.

The comments just shows how entitled people have become. Most people use GitHub and features for free and have the audacity to complain.

The outage is due to massive load increase. In 4 months the number of commits doubled to 2.9 Billions. Anyone worked with high load systems knows that’s it’s not a normal growth and how difficult even to keep on horizontally scaling in a short time period such a complex system.

GitHub should charge at least maybe 5$ monthly fee and most of the entitled freeloaders would leave the platform and it would free up resources

AWS CloudWatch has an option to show the trend and what it will be like after x-period.

Doesn't Azure have such options so that engineers can predict to scale better? Seems like engineers are not ready for this per postmortem

dang and friends, can you lock (some) threads? This is getting out of hand, it seems to me?

GitHub outages seem to be very normal and even more emotional these days. Yet, that’s no reason to treat each other destructively. It’s sad.

So let’s turn this energy into creating something better.

Great read - I'm glad they realize there's work ahead but what I'm missing is: * Paid customers: we know you pay us often a ton of money, and we burn your month on actions during these outages - we'll refund you for the days we spent your money and gave you no value. * Paid customer: We know you put your trust in us, so we'll ensure we have a separate pool of capacity to ensure we can keep that trust. * Paid customer: we'll proactively refund you when we miss our SLA.

What I read from this is: * Scaling is hard, we don't have enough capacity * We give away a shitton of compute for free * I have to talk about Azure not being a steaming pile of poop, otherwise my bonus will get tweaked downward in the next comp cycle.

Notice there's nothing about paid customers, I'll add in what they are missing:

Paid customers: Go F*ck yourself, you don't pays us enough to be an interesting line item compared to windows server.

Has to be one of the most vague outage summaries of the year