Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is xD On the outside it feels like a product held together with duct tape, wood glue and prayers.
Hey, don't insult wood glue like that.
or prayers
Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
531–540 of 853 posts
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#532Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is duration of runs. He was just highlighting the absurde cost if you were to run it 24/7 like some people with their own self hosted runners do.
I am not understanding something. If its the price of runs, then its not always running. If its price of the agent to exist, then thats not paying per runs- then you’re right that people tend to leave their runners online 24/7- but I’ve never worked anywhere that had workers building 24/7.
I guess some people just always have something running since it's owned hardware. Daily builds of popular OSS projects or constant vuln scans or whatever?
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#533I really enjoy how they list the price PER MINUTE to make it sound like this isn't absurdly expensive. A lot of people leave their self-hosted runners running 24/7 because, after all, they're self-hosted. This is $2.88/day, $86.4/month, $1051.2/year. For them to do essentially nothing. Most notably, this is the same price as their hosted "Linux 1-core" on a per-minute basis. Meaning they're charging you the same for…
You can get far bigger VM for that per month. It's ridiculus.
Of course entirely expected after MS buyout, if anything I'm surprised it took that long
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not understanding something. If its the price of runs, then its not always running. If its price of the agent to exist, then thats not paying per runs- then you’re right that people tend to leave their runners online 24/7- but I’ve never worked anywhere that had workers building 24/7.
OP means to say he has many jobs in the merge queue that the runners are always busy 24/7. This is not uncommon in some orgs - less number of concurrent runners, slow builds, loads of jobs because of automation or how hooks for the runners are setup. In the context of discussion that doesn't matter, OP's point distills to that they use minimum of 720 hours / month of orchestration time or some multiple of that on sel…
If you have a lot of not very time sensitive jobs, e.g. large merge trains, it was reasonable to have a not very fast runner run close to full utilization. Now that you'd pay by the run-minute, it'll be cheaper to move to a faster runner and run it at 10%.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#535Well sounds like $40 per month more for us. Looked at CircleCI pricing, and mostly because of HOW they charge, it would be $3000, so Github it is.
Is that because you have loads of users? (curious CircleCI employee here)
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#536This 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…
> is $0.002/minute a good price for this
Absolutely not, since it's the same price as their cheapest hosted option. If all they're doing is orchestration, why the hell are they charging per-minute instead of per-action or some other measure that recognizes the difference in their cost between self-hosted and github-hosted?
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a solo Founder who recently invested in self-hosted build infrastructure because my company runs ~70,000 minutes/month, this change is going to add an extra $140/month for hardware I own . And that's just today; this number will only go up over time. I am not open to GitHub extracting usage-based rent for me using my own hardware. This is the first time in my 15+ years of using GitHub that I'm seriously evaluating…
feels like a new generation is learning what life is like when microsoft has a lot of power. (tl;dr: they try to use it.)
ABuse it.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#538Seriously. They're charging me for using MY cpus? Forgejo incoming testing period..
A lot of server software does that. People were paying absurd prices for fast Xeons to save on their Oracle bills.
Reminds me of a customer that had in their contract requirements GHz amount so after we won the contract we digged out some old P4 based Xeons (everything after for a long time had lower clocks) and they got their stuff ran on old junk because it would be breach of contact not to.
It was govt thing and they are required to put a new bid every few years and their bid was EVIDENTLY "just list what our current hosting provider has, we can't be arsed to spend months migrating infrastructure every few years", but the clever weasels in the sales managed to get them.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#539Earlier 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 $0.002/minute a good price for this. I have never run GitHub Actions, so I am going to assume that experience on other, similar, systems applies. So if your job takes an hour to build and run th…
I run about 1 action a day taking 18h running on 2 runners One being self hosted 24gb ram 8 core ARM vps and one being a 64gb 13900k x86 dedicated server Now the GitHub pricing change definitely? costs more than both servers combined a month ... (They cost about 60$ 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…
Somewhere around 0.00004$ probably.
Nice profit margin…
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#540This 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 f…
Not sure why you think forgejo is competition and not Gitlab.
> Or shortly summarized: lock in through pricing.
how would increasing price make you locked in more ?
> If you don't really care about the metadata all it pretty much takes is moving git repositories with their history.
moving PR/CI/CD/Ticket flow is very significant effort, as in most companies that stuff is referenced everywhere. Having your commits refer ticket ID from system that no longer exists is royal PITA