Github downtime (and subsequent postmortems) are a regular feature of the HN front page. The postmortems have come to command their own audience, similar to the CloudFlare reports.
It's actually a pretty bad position Github's being put in. They sit at the crossroads of playing defense against DDoS and trying to dispel or at least ameliorate any blame for the downtime.
My point was, if they have indeed become the internet's DDoS proving ground (as several others were speculating), then while you can see how much effort they're putting into these postmortems, I can see it becoming a vicious cycle.
Then the challenge is, how does Github placate their users without basically pinning a ribbon on the attacker? The funny thing is how the "best practice" checklist for a postmortem (say what happened, say how you thought you were safe, say how something unexpected broke your assumptions, apologize, say what you're doing differently in the future) basically ties their hands.
It's actually a pretty bad position Github's being put in. They sit at the crossroads of playing defense against DDoS and trying to dispel or at least ameliorate any blame for the downtime.
My point was, if they have indeed become the internet's DDoS proving ground (as several others were speculating), then while you can see how much effort they're putting into these postmortems, I can see it becoming a vicious cycle.
Then the challenge is, how does Github placate their users without basically pinning a ribbon on the attacker? The funny thing is how the "best practice" checklist for a postmortem (say what happened, say how you thought you were safe, say how something unexpected broke your assumptions, apologize, say what you're doing differently in the future) basically ties their hands.
A pretty bad position for Github all around.