Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
resources.github.com
Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
1–10 of 853 posts
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#2> We are introducing a $0.002 per-minute Actions cloud platform charge for all Actions workflows across GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners.
Charging for self-hosted runners is an interesting choice. That's the same cost as their smallest hosted runners [1]
[1] - https://docs.github.com/en/billing/reference/actions-runner-...
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#3> We are introducing a $0.002 per-minute Actions cloud platform charge for all Actions workflows across GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners. Charging for self-hosted runners is an interesting choice. That's the same cost as their smallest hosted runners [1] [1] - https://docs.github.com/en/billing/reference/actions-runner-...
Yep - Bitbucket made a similar move recently and I guess they are just following along. I'd love to get the justification of that fee tho…
Edit: Confused GitLab and Bitbucket
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#4[deleted]
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#5That makes me genuinely curious about the internal hosted vs. self-hosted usage ratio they're seeing. I'd have guessed the bulk of the cost/volume was on hosted, but clearly that can't be the case
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#6> We are introducing a $0.002 per-minute Actions cloud platform charge for all Actions workflows across GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners. Charging for self-hosted runners is an interesting choice. That's the same cost as their smallest hosted runners [1] [1] - https://docs.github.com/en/billing/reference/actions-runner-...
Yep - Bitbucket made a similar move recently and I guess they are just following along. I'd love to get the justification of that fee tho… Edit: Confused GitLab and Bitbucket
I initially felt a bit offended when I saw this. Then I thought about it and at the end of the day there's a decent amount of infrastructure that goes into displaying the build information, updating it, scanning for secrets and redacting, etc.
I don't know if it's worth the amount they are targeting, but it's definitely not zero either.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#7> We are introducing a $0.002 per-minute Actions cloud platform charge for all Actions workflows across GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners. Charging for self-hosted runners is an interesting choice. That's the same cost as their smallest hosted runners [1] [1] - https://docs.github.com/en/billing/reference/actions-runner-...
Yep - Bitbucket made a similar move recently and I guess they are just following along. I'd love to get the justification of that fee tho… Edit: Confused GitLab and Bitbucket
That's a surprise, do you have a link to their announcement?
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#8Yikes! They seem to be gunning for services like WarpBuild, which we've used for a couple years to keep our costs low. The $0.002 per minute on top of WarpBuild's costs is exactly GitHub's new pricing scheme.
I'm happy for competition, but this seems a bit foul since we users aren't getting anything tangible beyond the promise of improvements and investments that I don't need.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#9That makes me genuinely curious about the internal hosted vs. self-hosted usage ratio they're seeing. I'd have guessed the bulk of the cost/volume was on hosted, but clearly that can't be the case
GitHub charges too much for hosted runners. It's pretty straightforward to switch to another runner provider at literally half the cost of GitHub.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#10That makes me genuinely curious about the internal hosted vs. self-hosted usage ratio they're seeing. I'd have guessed the bulk of the cost/volume was on hosted, but clearly that can't be the case
Anecdotally I've seen it get a lot more common to use third-party managed runners (e.g. Blacksmith) for anyone that needs slightly beefier machines and/or a caching system that actually works.