I am disappointed. A few servers have been moved via train and stayed online. Codeberg should do better.

Migrations should always incur downtime

"Hey we're migrating, take a break for a week"

Lol, awesome.

Annoyingly I noticed that the status page only shows the past 22 minutes to 1 hour for the primary services. I have no idea why, and there doesn't seem to be a way to look further back. But the badge says 99.45% uptime over the last 14 days, so that's probably right.

They also have an history of incidents further down and as you can see they are very short, heck many aren't even incidents since they were on purpose for mantaince and features deployment

To be fair MS makes orders of magnitude more money and has the benefit of operations at scale. Whereas codeberg's operational budget for 2025 was 100k euro and they still need to deal with DDoS and bot scraping. They also were running off a single server up until sept'25 when they had two donated hardware services which are now hooked up to make a 3 node ceph cluster.

more users means, they should do much better than the ones with less users (assuming each user is worth the same/requires same infra).

at the worst case, a bigger org could just copy paste a smaller orgs system a couple times to get the exact same uptime, with same budget per user*. The benefit of bigger orgs is, that they can consolidate these separate system a big system that is more stable AND costs less. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't have big orgs in the first place**.

* yes, it is NOT the same budget for the users. You can't JUST copy paste the system, you'd also need to think how you split it up. I know there are a million little things to nitpick here, but this can all be solved somewhat easily, and they wont change the overall argument.

** regulatory capture, lobbying, corruption and creating a monopoly could also be consider aspects of "consolidating into a bigger system". This doesn't mean why MS shouldn't be able to be better, it just explains why they aren't better.