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

691–700 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#691

Post by IshKebab »

quasigod wrote: post #209
IshKebab wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Useless for Mac or Windows presumably.

What do you mean? This is for CI, whatever the dev machine runs is irrelevant. Either way, the CI uses OCI containers built with Nix, you don't need Nix installed on the host. Also Nix supports MacOS.

I wasn't talking about developers machines. If you want to build and test software on Windows or Mac in CI, you obviously can't use a CI system that requires Linux. Yes I know about cross-compilation.

> Also Nix supports MacOS.

Doesn't matter. Tangled CI requires Docker.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#692

Post by brightball »

komali2 wrote: post #609
justsid wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gitea scales really badly with large repos in my experience. Gitlab works a lot better mostly because you can just throw more hardware at it. This is with a pretty large git repo and a lot of daily commits.

On the other hand, gitlab is a memory hog. You need a big vm dedicated to it. We were on codeberg for a couple years and it was fine.

You can also just use Gitlab Cloud but setup as many self hosted runners as you like.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#693

Post by Seattle3503 »

tetha wrote: post #318
golovast wrote: post #131

I got contacted by our rep a couple weeks ago, who informed me of this news. I thought it was a disaster and it really pissed me off. The rep couldn't even explain the reasoning well. It basically summed up to "because we can" and "where are you going to go?". He was shocked to find out that I didn't like it. We currently self-host on kubernets/aws. The thing that really got to me isn't the new charge per se. It's th…

This kinda change also has some different gears turning in my head. At $0.002 / build-minute, some of our large software integration tests would cost us around 15 - 20 cents. Some of our ansible integration tests would be 5 - 10 cents - and we run like 50 - 100 of those per day. Some deployments might cost us a cent or two. Apples to oranges, naturally, but like this, our infra-jenkins master would pay for itself in…

> And I mean sure, everything is kinda janky on Jenkins, but everything falls into an expectable corridor of jank you get used to.

This is kinda where I am. No one really feels like they are selling a premium "just works" product. Its all jank. So why it the jank I chose at the price I chose?

At the moment I'm self hosting gitlab runners. Its jank. But it's free.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#694

Post by philippta »

Nextgrid wrote: post #514
throwaway150 wrote: post #455

It is us, developers, who convinced our management to purchase GitHub Enterprise to be our forge. We didn't pay any heed to the values of software freedom. A closed source, proprietary software had good features. We saw that and convinced our management to purchase it. Never mind what cost it would impose in the future when the good software gets bad owners. Never mind that there were alternatives that were inferior…

Takes like these do not account for the value you gained by using the software in the meantime. Here are 2 scenarios: 1) company uses exclusively free software, spends more time dealing with the shortcomings of said software than developing product, product is half baked and doesn't sell well, company dies. 2) company uses proprietary but cheap/free (as in beer) software that does the job really well, focuses on deve…

Perhaps our industry should adopt a different approach, that fills in the gap between those.

- You host open-source software on your own hardware.

- You pay a company for setup and maintenance by the hour.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#695

Post by gaigalas »

justcool393 wrote: post #675
gaigalas wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if I am, and now my developers suddenly start to produce changes much faster? Like, one developer now produces the volume of five. Would you keep charging the same rate per head?

why wouldn't you? these are easily compressible text files. storing even like 100x into a 400 day (at most, the default for GH is 90) box is downright cheap to do on even massive scales. it's 2025, for log files and a spicy cron daemon (you pay for the artifact storage), it's practically free to do so. this isn't like the days of Western Union where paying $0.35 to send some data across the world is a good deal

If that's the case, why all the fuzz?

All the people complaining can just tap into this almost-free and acessible cheap resource you are referring to instead.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#696

Post by aaronds »

almosthere wrote: post #552
aaronds wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you send a link to the page you’re looking at? Thanks! Pricing should mostly just be users + build minutes (for cloud runners) + storage. There is a few other optional, feature specific costs. Self hosted runners are free, but you need to self host caches/workspaces - our native ones have an egress bill to self hosted runners.

https://circleci.com/pricing/build-your-plan/ If self-hosted runners are free that would change our equation a bit. I'll talk to some folks here, I liked using this product at another company I worked at - but this would most likely shake out AFTER Github charges us the first time.

Good to know - and I can see the confusion on that page - I'll pass on the feedback, thanks!

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#697

Post by Madmallard »

throwaway150 wrote: post #455

It is us, developers, who convinced our management to purchase GitHub Enterprise to be our forge. We didn't pay any heed to the values of software freedom. A closed source, proprietary software had good features. We saw that and convinced our management to purchase it. Never mind what cost it would impose in the future when the good software gets bad owners. Never mind that there were alternatives that were inferior…

I don't understand how once these companies go down the user hostile hell-hole... like why do we allow them to keep operating?

How is there not a collective decision to dissolve them?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#698

Post by makeitdouble »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #654
throwaway150 wrote: post #455

It is us, developers, who convinced our management to purchase GitHub Enterprise to be our forge. We didn't pay any heed to the values of software freedom. A closed source, proprietary software had good features. We saw that and convinced our management to purchase it. Never mind what cost it would impose in the future when the good software gets bad owners. Never mind that there were alternatives that were inferior…

> learn from our mistakes and convince our teams and management to use community-maintained, libre alternatives Every company I've been at that tried to self-host something like GitLab, later moved to GitHub. Nobody in business cares if it's open source/free software. They care about managed hosting, centralized services, invoicing, etc. DIY is great for hobbyists and the cash-strapped.

> DIY is great for hobbyists and the cash-strapped.

And the companies with specific needs (funnily enough, at the other end of the cash spectrum) or have a lower internal cost than the products out there.

There's more of them out there than we give credit for I think. In particular, running one's own stack on the corner seldom makes the news.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#699

Post by csomar »

larkost wrote: post #168
bdbdbdb wrote: post #120

This 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…

> $0.002/minute a good price for this.

It is not only not good. It is outrageous. The amount of compute required for orchestration is small (async operations) and also they already charge your for artifacts storage. You need to understand that the orchestration just receives details (inbound) from the runner. It needs very little resources.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#700

Post by alexellisuk »

gallexme wrote: post #448
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…

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…

It sounds like you'd be better off self-hosting Jenkins. The other issue with GHA is they cap all runs at 6 hours.

Despite what people say about "maintaining" Jenkins (whatever that means to them personally) - you can set it up in an IaaC way including the jobs. You can migrate/create jobs en masse via its API (I did this about 10 years ago for a large US company converting from what was then called TFS)

Post reply on HN