This seems backwards. Why charge for me to run the thing myself instead of them?
I develop software, I also test and run it. All in my machines. But you (yes, you personally) have to collect the results and publish them to a webpage for me. For free. Would you make this deal?
Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
441–450 of 853 posts
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#442The reason this makes sense, at least for Github, is because the only valid reason to run your own action runners is compliance. And if you are doing it for compliance, price doesn't really matter. You don't really have a choice. If you've been running your runners on your own infra for cost reasons, you're not really that interesting to the Github business.
Self-hosted runners help bridge the gap with on-prem servers, since you can pop a runner VM inside your infra and give it the connectivity/permissions to do deployments.
This announcement pisses me off, because it's not something related to abuse/recouping cost, since they could impose limits on free plans or whatever.
This will definitely influence me to ensure all builds/deployments are fully bash/powershell scripted without GH Action-specific steps. Actions are a bit of a dumpster fire anyway, so maybe I'll just go back to TeamCity like I used before Actions.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#443Are there bring-your-own-agent CI platforms that don't have pricing structures like this? Buildkite and CircleCI do.
"Any Network Egress to CircleCI will be charged. At this current time, this includes CircleCI Caches, Workspaces, and Artifacts and will be charged at the normal rate according to your Usage Controls.
The only network traffic that will result in billing is accrued through restoring caches and workspaces, and downloading artifacts to self-hosted runners. Retention of artifacts, workspace, and cache objects will result in billing for storage usage.
Since your builds will not be running on CircleCI's Infrastructure, you will not be charged compute credits"
https://support.circleci.com/hc/en-us/articles/2064321965685...
I think that's fair. In my personal opinion most people started using GitHub Actions because it “came for free with the VCS and/or our MS contract” and it was “good enough for the job”. Now might be a good time to look around at the alternatives again. There is a reason that f.e. CircleCI is doing fully focused CI/CD for 10+ years and is still going strong. Plenty of businesses don’t want to put all their eggs in one (MS) basket, for all kinds of reasons. I guess today one of these reasons became obvious.
Disclaimer: I work at CircleCI.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#444Didn't see it mentioned yet but I like gitea and it's runner. It's all in Go so very low overhead. https://docs.gitea.com/usage/actions/act-runner
(plz correct me if i'm wrong)
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#445The reason this makes sense, at least for Github, is because the only valid reason to run your own action runners is compliance. And if you are doing it for compliance, price doesn't really matter. You don't really have a choice. If you've been running your runners on your own infra for cost reasons, you're not really that interesting to the Github business.
I needed arm64 workers, because x86 would take ~25 minutes to do a build.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Outrageous"? It's two tenths of a cent per minute. How much will it impact you, really, particularly relative to the cost of compute?
That’s 2.5x what my actual runners cost. For every $100 in compute, I will be paying $250 to github. They can fuck right off
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#447Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#448This seems backwards. Why charge for me to run the thing myself instead of them?
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 $0.002/minute a good price for this. I have never run GitHub Actions, so I am going to assume that experience on other, similar, systems applies. So if your job takes an hour to build and run th…
Now the GitHub pricing change definitely? costs more than both servers combined a month ... (They cost about 60$ together )
3 step GitHub action builds around 1200 nix packages and derivations , but produces only around 50 lines of logs total if successful and maybe 200 lines of log once when a failure occurs And I'm supposed to pay 4$ a day for that ? Wonder what kind of actual costs are involved on their side of waiting for a runner to complete and storing 50 lines of log
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#449This seems backwards. Why charge for me to run the thing myself instead of them?
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…
It makes sense to do usage-based pricing with a generously-sized free tier, which seems to be what they're doing? Offering the entire service for free at any scale would imply that you're "paying" for/subsidizing this orchestration elsewhere in your transactions with GitHub. This is more-transparent pricing.
Although, this puts downward pressure on orgs' willingness to pay such a large price for GH enterprise licenses, as this service was hitherto "implicitly" baked into that fee. I don't think the license fees are going to go down any time soon, though :P
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#450> In the past, our customers have asked us how GitHub views third-party runners long-term. The platform fee largely answers that: GitHub now monetizes Actions usage regardless of where jobs run, aligning third-party runners like Blacksmith as ecosystem partners rather than workarounds. It does? I feel like it implies that they want third-party runners like Blacksmith out of the ecosystem, which is why they're now fin…
That's clearly the case, this is a three-pronged manoeuver : - Introducing a cheap 1-core runner - Lowering the price of GitHub-hosted runners - Making it slightly more expensive to use self-hosted runners - There is actually a fourth one: the vnet integration, which also allows you to run public runners in your own infra As a bonus, for some people it means something that was free is now not free. Those who are will…
https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/con...