Live data from Hacker News

Surprise, pay $1000

forestwalk.ai

101–110 of 234 posts

Re: Surprise, pay $1000

#101
I am sure Blacksmith is the easy path if you don't want to do any extra work and I am also sure their solution will scale much better as this is what they do full-time.

However, I can share what we did to ease on our GitHub Actions bills if it helps.

Effectively we have our own runners hooked so that a job is scheduled, a runner picks it up and goes with it. We still use GitHub Actions but our monthly bill is now flat because we pay for a server. It is about 6x cheaper if not more.

The solution is not open source but it boils down to a Go service that orchestrates firecracker vms. All the vms are pre-warmed so there is always a fresh supply of workers to pick jobs of various sizes.

It is basic and it works. We have not had any issues since deployed.

The runners can be anything from 1 cpu 2 GB to 64GB 8 cpus. We can add more worker types in a config file.

I am not exaggerating when I say that we used to pay 1000s per month for this. Now our bills are in the range of a few hundred. Other dev boxes are done in the same way.

Re: Surprise, pay $1000

#102

Ooff, this seems a bit sketchy. We recently looked at GA runner alternatives and decided on https://avrea.com . See if you have a better experience with them :)

Great that you liked using us. Happy to have you onboard.(Avrea founder here)

Re: Surprise, pay $1000

#104
post #101

I am sure Blacksmith is the easy path if you don't want to do any extra work and I am also sure their solution will scale much better as this is what they do full-time. However, I can share what we did to ease on our GitHub Actions bills if it helps. Effectively we have our own runners hooked so that a job is scheduled, a runner picks it up and goes with it. We still use GitHub Actions but our monthly bill is now fla…

As someone who has worked with gitlab for the last 5 years, i find it amazing how over complicated the github flow it for CICD! Spin up a server and add the gitlab agent and done! You need more? Fine spin up a EKS k8 cluster and done!

Re: Surprise, pay $1000

#105
post #101

I am sure Blacksmith is the easy path if you don't want to do any extra work and I am also sure their solution will scale much better as this is what they do full-time. However, I can share what we did to ease on our GitHub Actions bills if it helps. Effectively we have our own runners hooked so that a job is scheduled, a runner picks it up and goes with it. We still use GitHub Actions but our monthly bill is now fla…

> We still use GitHub Actions but our monthly bill is now flat because we pay for a server.

Caveat here being that GitHub is exploring charging a usage-based fee for self-hosted GitHub Action runners [1]. While they've halted it for now, it's something worth being aware of as you assess your costs. This is probably a drop in the bucket compared to the order of magnitude savings you've described.

[1]: https://github.blog/changelog/2025-12-16-coming-soon-simpler...

Re: Surprise, pay $1000

#106
I had a similar issue with Blacksmith, though it was something called "Sticky disk" that caused unexpected costs. I'm still not even sure what it is.

It was disappointing to see -- I've used Depot in the past and will stick with them where possible.

Re: Surprise, pay $1000

#107
post #43

I'm paying $60/mo. for a Kubernetes cluster running Forgejo + Forgejo Actions with plenty of parallel CI runners.

Yea same with our internal gitlab system with a EKS cluster for runners, maybe $100/month for the full infra setup.

Re: Surprise, pay $1000

#108
Hey folks - Greg here, I do product at Blacksmith.

I want to say upfront - we've never pursued these invoices. If someone feels they didn't get value from the service, we've eaten that cost and always will.

There's a bit of an implicit policy decision on our side here that we did a bad job of communicating - I want to clarify that, and then talk about how we can fix it.

First, we wanted to let customers start using Blacksmith without a credit card. Very few infra startups do this today - CC validation is great for anti-abuse - but doing so has let us support a much greater number of free users.

Many of these free users have turned into full OSS sponsorships (most recently ccusage, and before that, OpenClaw) or large paying accounts, and we haven't wanted to cut those users off from trying us. It's a real pain point to find a credit card to put down for your company or OSS project's CI spend before you've even tried the service.

Second, not having a credit card on file means we don't actually know when credit card-less users intend to continue past their free trial.

Shutting down users CI workloads entirely seemed harsh, especially because doing so would fail builds and require a code change to resolve. If users could start without a credit card, we weren't going to then hold their runners hostage. Instead, we decided to just eat the cost for the small number of users who either abused our services or did not actually mean to use the service.

This worked, mostly - though every month we have gotten a number of support cases with users confused about their invoice. If they didn't intend to use the service past the free tier, we've voided out the invoice, and often given credits against a future bill if they intended to use the service, but were surprised by the behavior.

We have a lot to improve about our billing mechanics - but because our retention rate for these users has been so high, we have assumed great support could catch and resolve the ambiguity.

That said, there's two changes we can make now:

1. we clearly missed the mark on supporting this specific case - we should have offered to void this bill entirely given the surprise factor here.

2. We're prioritizing up making progress on a Wallet implementation that will let folks choose to suspend their runners rather than let them continue to run after they use up their free tier.

We also just launched a new billing/metrics view so users have better visibility into their free tier and Blacksmith usage.

I'm sorry for the bad taste this has left in everyone's mouth - I'll be hanging out here and on greg [at] blacksmith [dot] sh if you want to talk about your account specifically.

Re: Surprise, pay $1000

#109
post #104
post #101

I am sure Blacksmith is the easy path if you don't want to do any extra work and I am also sure their solution will scale much better as this is what they do full-time. However, I can share what we did to ease on our GitHub Actions bills if it helps. Effectively we have our own runners hooked so that a job is scheduled, a runner picks it up and goes with it. We still use GitHub Actions but our monthly bill is now fla…

As someone who has worked with gitlab for the last 5 years, i find it amazing how over complicated the github flow it for CICD! Spin up a server and add the gitlab agent and done! You need more? Fine spin up a EKS k8 cluster and done!

You can do the same with GitHub Actions. Spin up a server and start the actions runner on it and done! But if you want to dynamically scale your runners in response to load using a Kubernetes cluster, then they provide Action Runner Controller and it's a bit more complicated.
Post reply on HN