Maybe that's just the date when they started tracking uptime using this sytem?
I've seen so many times where Company A will complain that their vendors aren't accurate enough about uptime and how Company A notices first that their vendors are down, but then they themselves have a very laggy or inaccurate status page.
We want our vendors to be accurate to the minute on these, but many CTOs don't care to admit when they too have problems.
"The Missing GitHub Status Page" with overall aggregate percentages. Currently at 90.84% over the last 90 days. It was at 90.00% a couple days ago.
Anecdotally, it seems believable that 1 in 50 times (2%) in Feb that Actions barfed. Which is not very nice, but it wasn't at 1 in 10 times (10%).
That being said, even when looking at the split uptimes, you'd have to do a very skewed weighting to achieve a number with more than one 9.
The problem here is the specification of what the system is. It's a bit unfair to call GH a single service, but it's how Microsoft sells it.
GitHub Actions, on the other hand, is frequently used in the same workflows as the base GitHub product, so it's worth considering both separately and together, much like various Azure services, whereas I see no reason at all to consider an aggregate "Microsoft" downtime metric that includes GitHub, Azure, Office 365, Xbox Live, etc.
The most useful, metric, actually, is "downtimes for the various collections of GitHub services I regularly use together", but that would obviously require effort to collect the data myself.
From the point of view of an individual developer, it may be "fraction of tasks affected by downtime" - which would lie between the average and the aggregate, as many tasks use multiple (but not all) features.
But if you take the point of view of a customer, it might not matter as much 'which' part is broken. To use a bad analogy, if my car is in the shop 10% of the time, it's not much comfort if each individual component is only broken 0.1% of the time.
Not to go too out of my way to defend GH's uptime because it's obviously pretty patchy, but I think this is a bad analogy. Most customers won't have a hard reliability on every user-facing gh feature. Or to put it another way there's only going to be a tiny fraction of users who actually experienced something like the 90% uptime reported by the site. Most people are in practice are probably experienceing something like 97-98%.
Well, I mean, I guess that's fair really. How long has github been around? Surely it's got five weeks of paid time off by now...
What a weird takeaway
The graph being all nice before the Microsoft acquisition is a fun narrative, until you realize that some products (like actions, announced on October 16th, 2018) didn't exist and therefore had no outages. Easy to correct for by setting up start dates, but not done here. For the rest that did exist (API requests, Git ops, pages, etc) I figured they could just as easily be explained with GitHub improving their observability.
BTW, GitLab called it "CI/CD" just as a navigation section on their dashboard, and that name spread outside as well, despite being weird. Weird names are easier to remember and associate with specific meaning, instead of generic characterless "Actions".
Webhook doesn't fire, nothing errors out, and you find out when someone asks why staging hasn't moved in two days.
The whole "just because we could doesn't mean we should" quote applies here.
However, I don’t work on web apps. Maybe it’s better for the JavaScript folks. I hope to never write a line of js in my lifetime.
If you started the y-axis at zero, you wouldn't see much of anything. Logarithmic scale would still be a bit much imo.
That's... kind of my point.
As a reliability engineer, I'm disappointed in GitHub's 99.5% availability periods, especially as they impact paying customers. On the other hand, most users are non-paying users, and a 99.5% availability for a free service seems to me to be a reasonable tradeoff relative to the potential cost of improving reliability for them.
If they are using your data, you're still paying just not in cash.
As a former reliability engineer, I'm trying hard to remember back when we had multiple months in a row never reaching 100% uptime, and I can't. Yes, we've seen runs of painful months, but also runs of easy months without down time.
But let's talk root cause here, the cost of improving them here, is someone caring. This isn't simply a hard problem, it's a well understood hard problem that no one who makes decisions cares about. Which as a reliability engineer is an embarrassment. Uptime is one of those foundational aspects that you can build on top of. If you're not willing to invest in something as core as your code or service works. What are you even doing?
https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/new-year-new-...
The data is there, you just have to hover over each data point.
Actually the last 4-5 outages from Github, Our Azure environments have issues (that they rarely post on the status page) and lo and behold I'll notice that Github is also having the same problem.
I can only assume most of this is from the Azure migration path. Such an abysmal platform to be on. I loathe it.
Looks like there's an internal service health bulletin:
Impact Statement: Starting at 19:53 UTC on 31 Mar 2026, some customers using the Key Vault service in the East US region may experience issues accessing Key Vaults. This may directly impact performing operations on the control plane or data plane for Key Vault or for supported scenarios where Key Vault is integrated with other Azure services.
Honestly all of the key vault functions are offline for us in that region. Just another day in paradise.
Also the fact that the azure status page remains green is normal. Just assume it's statically green unless enough people notice.
Though I will be the first to say I don't fully trust it based on the flakey git clone errors we see in CI.
The fact that we’re all talking about it, and not at all surprised, is a great example we can take when making the case for more 9’s of reliability.
* well, very technical power users.
GitHub’s reliability could stand to be improved but without narrowing down to products these sort of comparisons are meaningless.
And even just that aspect of the service is now extremely unreliable. If outages in the LLM side can cause that to break, that would indicate some serious architectural problems.
Just the Git operations show way more instability post acquisition.
Looking at this now, you might as well self host and you would still get better uptime than GitHub.
There were definitely partial outages to services inside that row of horizontal green dots, that the status page just wasn't advertising.
It’s despicable to see everyone punching down on GitHub. Even under Microsoft they’ve continued to provide an invaluable and free service to open source developers .
And now , while vibe coders smother them to death, we ridicule them . Shameful , really
If it brings them down, they’ve only themselves to blame. More likely it’ll just hasten the end of free public repos, which will be a shame, but we’ll find other ways to share code that aren’t reliant on one semi-benevolent megacorp.
I hope GitHub shuts down free tier , maybe developers will finally be grateful .
They’re a big enough corporation that we can have nuanced feelings about them. Simultaneously grateful for one part of what they do, and unsympathetic for the consequences of a different part of what they do.
