[smt88]

This is so wrong that it makes me wonder if it's satire.

"The whole point" (as you put it) of status pages was to publish high-level monitoring data to users. The monitoring process should occur outside the system that is being monitored, perhaps even on a different cloud.

Eventually, many companies realized this revealed expensive SLA violations and ended that level of transparency.

Your status page can and should report import metrics to users, like elevated error rates. Most status pages used to.

[naikrovek]

not satire.

no company will put any amount of monitoring online for anyone to see, no matter how high level. for it to be useful info, it must contain details, and information about infrastructure is usually well guarded for very good reasons.

[smt88]

> no company will put any amount of monitoring online for anyone to see, no matter how high level

Many companies used to do this. I remember the first time someone on HN commented, "Hey, is it possible this status page is just a useless blog now?" And people were trying to figure it out.

Companies arguably have a contractual obligation to be transparent about this data with their customers anyway, so a company like Github (where such a huge percentage of the industry is a customer) is going to leak the data one way or another.

[drewbug01]

https://github.blog/2012-12-05-new-status-site/#sharing-our-...