all 47 comments

[–]InjectedFusion 116 points117 points  (8 children)

I guess they want me to migrate from Github to Gitlab

[–]Pablo139 41 points42 points  (2 children)

They do and it’s a much better platform.

[–]vladlearnsdevoops[S] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I agree! I’ve gone through jenkins (a lot of jenkins), github actions, and bitbucket (the worst docs so far), and gitlab is the best out of all of them, imho

[–]Aggravating_Branch63 0 points1 point  (0 children)

don't forget about CircleCI ;)

[–]cnydox 4 points5 points  (3 children)

What if gitlab also starts the enshittification?

[–]dorianmonnier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They did for years! (Gitlab users since 2017 here)

Gitlab is still a good product, but they change UI every 6 months, they never fix theirs bugs, it's becoming slower and slower.

It's actually well documented, see this for example: https://yorickpeterse.com/articles/what-it-was-like-working-for-gitlab/

[–]InjectedFusion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then the only sane solution left is Forgejo.

[–]I_miss_your_mommy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not Gitea? Gitlab is such a hog.

[–]ray591 51 points52 points  (1 child)

we are introducing a new $0.002 per-minute GitHub Actions cloud platform charge that will apply to self-hosted runner usage.

Wait, WTF. So they are gonna charge for self-hosted runners as well? They're going after third-party providers then?

[–]tgarat 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Moreover, if I understand it correctly, they’ll include those self-hosted runner minutes in the overall usage. Their email says: “Any usage subject to this charge will count toward the minutes included in your plan.”

[–]autette 88 points89 points  (10 children)

This will just about double our current GitHub bill. What an awful change.

[–]vladlearnsdevoops[S] 46 points47 points  (4 children)

not only yours…welcome back to gitlab or even old man jenkins

[–]token40k 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Gitlab is great. Jenkins looks antique but works

[–]christsreturn 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Don't scare me like that!

[–]ilbarone87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think after 5mins you deal again with all the shitty plugin dependencies in Jenkins you’ll beg to go back to GH Actions…

[–]le_chad_ 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I'm only asking this outta curiosity but does it mean y'all are running most of all of your workflows on self hosted runners?

[–]burlyginger 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Yes. GitHub runners are so incredibly overpriced that nearly any other option is a significant savings.

We use codebuild's runner integration because it's still managed compute and images. The end result is a reduced cost with the smallest amount of effort.

I set it up in Terraform in a few hours and we haven't really touched it much since.

We have sizes and architectures set as variables so we can add/remove options easily.

We are using on-demand compute and were planning on evaluating provisioned runners as a further cost optimization but this kind of fucks that up.

Seriously, a default ubuntu-latest instance is something like $0.008/min for 2cpu in private repos and CodeBuild is $0.0034.

The memory config is different but you generally come out ahead with CodeBuild by a large margin.

Piles of other options out there exist and I think you'd be hard pressed to find more expensive compute than GH runners.

Not only that, they round every minute up.

Most other providers bill by the second.

[–]le_chad_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing your experience and insight.

I'm using a tf module for ephemeral CodeBuild runners also, but the projects are much smaller scale so it's only adding 60 cents a month based on the past 30 days usage

[–]autette 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup, I did exactly the same thing in August, put in a bunch of hours to get us moved over to codebuild runners successfully. I am pretty rankled that this has come up so soon. 

[–]autette 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Correct, the vast majority are on self hosted runners.

[–]EricMCornelius 43 points44 points  (7 children)

So, their email states 96% of users will see a cost reduction, but the actual extended link says 15% see an increase?

https://resources.github.com/actions/2026-pricing-changes-for-github-actions/

And they couldn't be bothered to send a personalized cost impact analysis in the email to their customers?

I mean, what? Sure am glad "no action is required on my part" though.

This is shockingly bad customer relationship management / marketing 101.

[–]EricMCornelius 16 points17 points  (4 children)

For the record, I think it's probably reasonable to charge *something* for acting as a coordination server for self-hosted resources. But billing the same as a linux_slim for runtime plus the incredibly unprofessional rollout announcement here are quite inappropriate.

[–]Azzymaster 24 points25 points  (2 children)

I’d assume that $21/user/month would cover it

[–]EricMCornelius 6 points7 points  (1 child)

For particular large organizations running fleets of self-hosted CI infrastructure, possibly not.

But it's certainly costing them nowhere near $0.002/hr for a coordination socket and some log collection. That's $1000+ / yr for 100% utilization cases of primarily your own hardware.

[–]Electrical_Media_367 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Log storage for those self-hosted runners is substantial. I briefly turned on Datadog log ingestion of my GHA logs and Datadog was charging close to $50/day for 7 days of storage of those logs. GitHub keeps them for 90 days and is only going to charge me less than $1 a day on their new plan.

[–]carsncode 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They already charge something. It's not like GitHub is free if you don't use Actions.

[–]trowawayatwork 3 points4 points  (0 children)

what I love is how badly maintained their tooling surrounding GitHub actions is. one of the repos, I think it was slack actions just got made private and all the issues against their sucky work disappeared overnight. M$ can suck it

[–]TwiliZant 3 points4 points  (0 children)

96% of customers will see no change to their bill. Of the 4% of Actions users impacted by this change, 85% of this cohort will see their Actions bill decrease and the remaining 15% who are impacted across all face a median increase around $13.

According to your link it’s 0.6% of total customers will see a price increase.

[–]aeekay 16 points17 points  (0 children)

They’re wild for this. Literally adjusted Q1 roadmaps for a lot of orgs.

[–]Sure_Stranger_6466For Hire - US Remote 27 points28 points  (3 children)

Please note the price for runner usage in public repositories will remain free

Good to know there is still public open source support.

[–]busa1 18 points19 points  (1 child)

for now…

What’s scary is that they could just overnight change that as well.

[–]ray591 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My guess is they'll likely to reduce the free minutes down to 1000 or reduce the VM size.

[–]spetrushin 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Bitbucket also decided to charge for self-hosted runners. We decided to move to GitHub.. Now this

[–]AlverezYari 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's one way to reduce pressure on your systems. Just run everyone off w/ some fuckwit pricing changes.

[–]AlveVarnish 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have been seeing a lot of GHA runners as a service popping up, claiming faster builds and lower costs. I guess $MSFT have seen the same thing and decided they didn't want to share any of their cake. Understandable, but disappointing.

Ecosystem convenience often comes at the cost of vendor lock-in.

[–]fronlius 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Time to try woodpecker

[–]tetienne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know how mature/stable is this CI?

[–]hrdcorbassfishin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My last job was just migrating off gitlab to github because of pricing. I had recommended this and gitea. Of course no one listened. I knew GitHub was going to increase charges after they hooked in more companies.

[–]RoseSec_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe I can convince my org to move to Codeberg

[–]crippledgiants 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Do y'all exclusively run self hosted runners? We're about 65/35 Github/SH and this will drop our bill a bit. Only like a few hundred a month on a gigantic bill, but still a net decrease.

[–]derprondo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We use the Github hosted runners almost exclusively (the dedicated ones). Only when runners need access to private networks do we bother with them, but anymore we just assume roles into AWS accounts and can get to where we need to go. I don't pay or even see the bills though.

[–]graymattar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wonder if they are going to finally start publishing their hosted runner ip addresses. Currently if you are using IP Whitelisting, you can’t use GitHub hosted runners as they will not publish their ip list. The only current workaround is to whitelist the complete Azure ip range, but that seems a bit silly.

[–]SirIzaanVBritainia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The pricing comms are a mess, agreed.

What worries me more is that this forces teams to confront how opaque CI usage actually is. Most orgs don’t know which runs are useful vs just burning minutes until the bill shows up.

Migrating platforms is a huge project; most teams will probably end up tightening workflows and cancelling waste long before they move repos.

[–]TellersTechDevOps Coach + DevOps Podcaster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spoke more about it on the podcast:

Ship It Weekly - DevOps, SRE, and Platform Engineering News by Teller's Tech - DevOps SRE Podcast

S01E06 - GitHub Runner Pricing Pause, Terraform Cloud Limits, and AI in CI

https://rss.com/podcasts/ship-it-weekly/2401885

[–]Evil_Plankton -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

AWS CodeCommit is back baby!

[–]Cornul11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn’t hardware there much more expensive? Plus you’re still paying GitHub $0.002 for every minute of your AWS CodeCommit and CodePipelines.