Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

resources.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#171

Post by noname120 »

anthonj wrote: post #151

It's a bit weird, they add pricing for this, but reducwle GitHub-hosted runners by "up to 39%". Not sure about the "up to" implications, but I guess it's just Microsoft trying to make github a bit more freemium tm

The full quote:

> And we’re reducing the net cost of GitHub-hosted runners by up to 39%, depending on which machine type is used.

> The price reduction you will see in your account depends on the types of machines that you use most frequently – smaller runners will have a smaller relative price reduction, larger runners will see a larger relative reduction.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#172

Post by smcameron »

whalesalad wrote: post #79
strangattractor wrote: post #60

Microsoft has started raising prices on many of their products. I suppose they decided that their current customers need to pay the increased CapEx for AI;) New motto - AI pay for it whether you use it or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Control, Alt, Delete.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#173

Post by timvdalen »

xnorswap wrote: post #35
paulddraper wrote: post #26

> > We are introducing a $0.002 per-minute Actions cloud platform charge for all Actions workflows across GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners. Holy s*** That's more expensive than an m8i.large. What on earth.

That's actually $90/month, that's kind of crazy. I realise 100% utilisation isn't realistic, but that still sounds very expensive when you're already BYOB.

We'd be at roughly $700/month at current usage.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#174

Post by amarant »

throwaway613745 wrote: post #149

Use open source software. Buy your own compute. Make the effort. It's worth it.

I'm kind of ok with renting compute so long as it's running open source software.

Basically I'll gladly pay for a service, but I don't like getting locked into that service. If the payed service is using FOSS, I will always have the option to migrate if the provider starts to misbehave

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#175

Post by mindcrash »

bdbdbdb wrote: post #120

This seems backwards. Why charge for me to run the thing myself instead of them?

Because they know Forgejo is starting to get attention from major players and thus becoming competitive, and hosting your own CI infrastructure will make completely moving away from GitHub all that easier - If you don't really care about the metadata all it pretty much takes is moving git repositories with their history.

Or shortly summarized: lock in through pricing.

Pretty sure this will explode straight in their faces though. And pretty damn hard.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#176

Post by ilvez »

beilabs wrote: post #33

Back to Buildkite I go.

Isn't it like way more expensive and restricted? They were very competitive in the early days, but currently they are more capped than anything else it seems. Especially for self hosting..

> Hosted Agents > > 2,000 minutes/month

:-o

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#177

Post by rcy »

amarant wrote: post #161

Getting acquired by Microsoft is a death sentence for any product. The only variable is how long after acquisition before they gut it. It's almost never right away. GitHub was acquired 7 years ago, but it started showing symptoms perhaps 2 years ago. With this I think it's clear the wound was fatal. GitHub will stumble on for a few more years with ever-decreasing quality, before going the way of Skype. So, I guess we…

hopefully something decentralized like https://tangled.org

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#178

Post by Fabricio20 »

kjuulh wrote: post #23
MathiasPius wrote: post #16

Introducing a separate charge specifically targeting those of your customers who choose to self-host your hilariously fragile infrastructure is certainly a choice.. And one I assume is in no way tied to adoption/usage-based KPIs. Of course, if you can just fence in your competition and charge admission, it'd be silly to invest time in building a superior product.

We've self-hosted github actions in the past, and self-hosting it doesn't help all that much with the fragile part. For github it is just as much triggering the actions as it is running them. ;) I hope the product gets some investment, because it has been unstable for such a long time, that on the inside it must be just the usual right now. GitHub has by far the worst uptime of any SaaS tools we use at the moment, an…

We self host the runners in our infrastructure and the builds are over 10x faster than relying on their cloud runners. It's crazy the performance you get from running runners on your own hardware instead of their shared CPU. Literally from ~8m build time on Gradle + Docker down to mere 15s of Gradle + Docker on self hosted CPUs.
Post reply on HN