Bitbucket's downtime is pretty much the same as Github's.

I use it at work and my team pushes to it approximately 40-50 times a day. In the last year the total amount of downtime I've experienced has been 4-8 hours. I pointed out the lack of downtime history to one of the guys when they asked if we could move to stash because we experienced 15 minutes down time twice in two days. (Also should point out we've experienced 10-24 hours downtime on our internal Jenkins so far this year)

It's just when you do experience downtime it feels really bad.

I would also like to point out (as a heavy user of both platforms) that BitBucket has outages that do not 'register' as an outage.

There are issues like hanging on pull requests/merges at random or not loading the diff.

Frustrating.

GitHub has this issue, too. Try doing a PR on GH when the diff is reasonably large. We get 500s from them when trying to review anything worth doing. That and the inability to set permissions on branches have prevented us from moving from self-hosted Gitolite to GH full time.

You should try BitBucket, just too see how hard it bails on you.

Do they offer unlimited private repos now? That's why I choose BB over GitHub back then. I don't notice them going down often though.

Yeah BB do unlimited private... but GitHub don't. I would pay for GitHub, but unless it's got better uptime there is no point...

No

https://github.com/pricing

You can evuluate by looking at http://status.bitbucket.org/history seems like one outrage almost once a month.

I used to use BB a lot, almost daily, last year. I would occasionally hit one of those "ssh issue" or "outage". The most problematic is BB cannot close issues automatically via commit message on some repositories. Some. It's rather annoying.

If you consider using BB or Github for real product, I advise you host yourself a server running either Gitlab or SCM-Manager (supports git, mercurial, svn) and when you push you should push to your "local" server and the remote server. This way you can still do some remote work during downtime without sending patches around. This is an option if you truly need a backup plan...

I'm not sure if you're making a joke and/or english is not your first language, but, for the record, I think you're looking for the word "outage", not "outrage".

That's a typo. Thank you. And this has nothing to do whether English is my first or second or third language. I can be completely fluent in English and still have a typo.

So next time, just say "you meant outage" is good enough.

You misspelled the word consistently with each usage. I thought you were trying to be funny. So, it wasn't clearly a typo to two distinct readers.

PS - It looks like you edited the second outrage, but not the first.

It's a perfectly viable option to use both.

It makes sense to choose one as your primary to meet your workflows, but having both means work can continue when one has an outage.

You can even automate pushing/updating commits to whichever you choose to be the secondary.

(Or of course you can setup your own git server for a third backup in case the internet explodes).

On the status page, click on “Month”, at the right of “System Metrics”. It gives the uptime for the current month only, unfortunately. So for April, it was 99.816%.