Why don't we all collectively mirror our repos to gitlab and switch development to there during the monthly outage?
Really, GitHub outages barely hurt at all. It's not like an AWS or Cloudflare outage which is more likely to be a production disaster. Every outage a bunch of people on HN start screaming about owning their own on-prem destiny or wondering why we're still on GitHub. Nothing changes because it's not nearly as bad as those people are making it out to be. Life is all about tradeoffs.
I don't see how the two situations are comparable
There's no evidence that the exact same doesn't happen with GitLab. I've had it (consistently) 500 on me in the past when there's nothing on their status page to indicate any issues.
That's not the point of discussion. I didn't say Gitlab doesn't lie about it or heck, That it doesn't have worse uptime than Github.
My argument is that a company erasing 300GB production database once is not a stain on their competency and that it can not be compared to a company which has very frequent outages which also happens to lie when they have outages.
> Trying to restore the replication process, an engineer proceeds to wipe the PostgreSQL database directory, errantly thinking they were doing so on the secondary. Unfortunately this process was executed on the primary instead. The engineer terminated the process a second or two after noticing their mistake, but at this point around 300 GB of data had already been removed.
https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2017/02/10/postmortem-of-datab...
Perhaps this is a continuing argument for self-hosting, especially if you don't have to expose the instance publicly. But then, if that's an option, you can also self-host GitHub (though I have heard less anecdotes about the stability of that).
I'm confused. You can do zero-downtime backups and replication of databases. I don't know what your company / Gitlab are doing but it seems wrong.