Anything that prices spammers out of abusing GitHub actions is a win in my book...
Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part, but how do spammers abuse self-hosted runners?
Form submission spam. Unique/'untraceable' IPs...
Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
61–70 of 853 posts
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#62what are the opensource alternatives to selfhosted runners ?
That's just the point. Selfhosted runners were the alternative. The only alternative for "runners" is Github-hosted, 200%-markup runners.
Now the only alternative is to move builds, CI, etc. off of GitHub's platform entirely, and maybe your source control as well. In other words, a big pain. Github seems to have entered peak encrapification: the point where they openly acknowledge rent-seeking as their product approach, fully deprecating "building the best, most reliable, trustworthy product." Now it's just "Pay us high margins because the effort to migrate off is big and will take too long to break even."
Basically the modern day Heroku business model.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#63Why would the self-hosted runner fee be per-minute instead of per-job? I don’t get it.
I had the same question — I understand that the Actions control plane has costs on self-hosted runners that GitHub would like to recoup, but those costs are fixed per-job. Charging by the minute for the user’s own resources gives the impression that GitHub is actually trying to disincentivize third-party runners.
Might be an estimation of logs storage/bandwidth.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#64what are the opensource alternatives to selfhosted runners ?
Genuinely curious about this as well. It's a major bummer that self-hosted infra can't be used to validate GitHub Pull Requests now; basically means I'll have to move my entire workflow off of GitHub so that everything can be integrated reasonably again.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#65Maybe it's time to start dusting off the ol' Jenkins-fu?
Charging per minute for self-hosted runners seems absolutely bananas!
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#66That's not a move of a company that thinks it can still grow. That's a Netflix "we have 90% of the market, let's squeeze them" move. This is the beginning. We have all seen this pattern over the last 5+ years. You know their next few moves.
The Netflix one worked
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#67I do not even understand why any decent size eng org uses actions. It only has rough edges.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#68Microsoft 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.
No such thing as free parking
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> I realise 100% utilisation isn't realistic It's worse than unrealistic. It's ludicrous. Any company running more than an hour of actions workflows per week on GitHub can afford a few dollars a month for infrastructure. The per-minute charge is less than the cost of a millisecond of engineering labor time.
Monorepo, though Gitlab, self-hosted runner, 41 hours in the last week.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#70We all knew this would happen. For open source projects one step local build and test is superior to full automation for this reason. It lasts forever whereas these automated server configs require ongoing maintenance.