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

351–360 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#351

Post by breppp »

featherless wrote: post #343
larkost wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is not for hardware you own. It is for the use of GutHubs coordinators, which they have been donating the use of to you for free. They have now decided that that service is something they are going to charge for. Your objection to GitHub "extracting usage-based rent from me" seems to ignore that you have been getting usage of their hardware for free up to now. So, like I said, the question for you is whether t…

No. It is not worth a time-scaled cost each month for them to start a job on my machines and store a few megabytes of log files. I'd happily pay a fixed monthly fee for this service, as I already do for GitHub. The problem here is that this is like a grocery store charging me money for every bag I bring to bag my own groceries. > But at $140 a month, how much time is that worth investing? It's not $140/month. It's $1…

> The problem here is that this is like a grocery store charging me money for every bag I bring to bag my own groceries.

Maybe they can market it as the Github Actions corkage fee

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#352

Post by newsoftheday »

awestroke wrote: post #58
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.

They still host all artefacts and logs for these self-hosted runs. Probably costs them a fair bit

[flagged]

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#354

Post by eugercek »

Companies like Ubicloud gives hosted actions faster and far more cheaper (5-10x) than Microsoft itself.

Now Microsoft will charge "data plane usage" (CRUDing a row that contains (id, ts, state_enum, acc_id ...) in essence) 2.5 more than what Ubicloud offers for WHOLE compute. Also to have "fair pricing" they'll make you pay 2.5 more the compute's price for being able to use their data plane.

cool.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#356

Post by numbsafari »

deathanatos wrote: post #347
larkost wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub has still been managing the orchestration and monitoring of runs that you run on your own (or other cloud) hardware. They have just decided that they are no longer going to do this for free. So the question becomes: is $0.002/minute a good price for this. I have never run GitHub Actions, so I am going to assume that experience on other, similar, systems applies. So if your job takes an hour to build and run th…

You know, one might ask what the base fee of $4k/mo (in my org's case) is covering, if not the control plane? Unless you're on the free org plan, they're hardly doing it "for free" today…

Exactly this. It’s not like they don’t have plenty of other fees and charges. What’s next, charging mil rates for webhook deliveries?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#357

Post by suryao »

Here are the practical implications and considerations to optimize for cost, given the new pricing. These are generic and ensure you think through your workflows and runners before making any changes.

1. Self-hosting runners or using WarpBuild/blacksmith runners is still cheaper Despite the $0.002/minute self-hosted runner tax, self-hosting runners on your cloud (aws/gcp/azure/...) or using WarpBuild/... runners remains the cheaper option.

2. Prefer larger runners If your workflow scales with the number of vCPUs, prefer larger runners. That ensures you spend fewer minutes on the runner, which reduces the GitHub self-hosted runner tax.

For example, using actions-runner-controller with heavy jobs running on 1 vcpu runners is not a good idea. Instead, prefer a 2vcpu runner (say) if it runs the job ~2x faster.

3. Prefer faster runners All else being equal, prefer faster runners. That ensures you spend fewer minutes on the runner, which reduces the GitHub self-hosted runner tax.

For example, if you're self-hosting on aws and using a t3g.medium runner, it's better to use a t4g.medium runner since the newer generation is faster, but not much more expensive.

4. Prefer fewer shards If you have a lot of shards for your jobs (example: tests on ~50 shards), consider reducing the number of shards and parallelizing the tests on fewer but larger runners.

5. Improve job performance This is not new advice, but it's now more important than ever because of the additional GitHub self-hosted runner tax.

6. Use GitHub hosted runners for very short jobs For linters and other very short jobs, it's better to use GitHub hosted runners.

Hope this helps. Note: I'm the founder of WarpBuild. I'm biased, but the points above hold.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#358

Post by groundzeros2015 »

azemetre wrote: post #246
Izikiel43 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix is looking out for Netflix shareholders, not for consumers, like any other public company.

Perfectly good excuse to make society worse for people. Oh wait, what's that? It's not a good excuse? Oh okay.

Nobody needs a Netflix subscription. You can just stop paying
Post reply on HN