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 though all tests (a bit on the long side, but I have some tests that run for days), then you are going to pay GitHub $.12 for that run. You are probably going to pay significantly more for the compute for running that (especially if you are running on multiple testers simultaneously). So this does not seem to be too bad.

This is probably going to push a lot of people to invest more in parallelizing their workloads, and/or putting them on faster machines in order to reduce the number of minutes they are billed for.

I should note that if you are doing something similar in AWS using SMS (Systems Management Service), that I found that if you are running small jobs on lots of system that the AWS charges can add up very quickly. I had to abandon a monitoring system idea I had for our fleet (~800 systems) because the per-hit cost of just a monitoring ping was $1.84 (I needed a small mount of data from an on-worker process). Running that every 10 minutes was going to be more than $250/day. Writing/running my own monitoring system was much cheaper.

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 alternative products to move my company to.

Yeah, I'm no GitHub apologist, but I'll be one in this context. This is actually a not-unreasonable thing to charge for. And a price point that's not-unreasonable.

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

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 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

You know, one might ask what the base fee of $4k/mo (in my org's case) is covering, if not the control plane?

Unless you're on the free org plan, they're hardly doing it "for free" today…

> They have just decided that they are no longer going to do this for free.

Right, instead, they now charge the full cost of orchestration plus runner for just the orchestration part, making the basic runner free.

(Considering that compute for "self-hosted" runners is often also rented from some party that isn't Microsoft, this is arguably leveraging the market power in CI orchestration that is itself derived from their market power in code hosting to create/extend market power in compute for runners, which sounds like a potential violation of both the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.)

Sure, but that shouldn't be a time-dependent charge. If my build takes an hour to build on GH's hardware, sure thing, charge me for that time. But if my build takes an hour to build on _my_ hardware, then why am I paying GH for that hour?

I get being charged per-run, to recoup the infra cost, but what about my total runtime on my machine impacts what GH needs to spend to trigger my build?

> $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.

> is $0.002/minute a good price for this

It was free, so anything other than free isn't really a good price. It's hard to estimate the cost on github's side when the hardware is mine and therefore accept this easily.

(Github is already polling my agent to know it's status so whether is "idle" or "running action" shouldn't really change a lot on their side.)

...And we already pay montly subscription for team members and copilot.

I have a self-hosted runner because I must have many tools installed for my builds and find it kinda counter productive to always reinstall those tools for each build as this takes a long time. (Yeah, I know "reproducible builds" aso, but I only have 24h in most of my days)

Even for a few hundreds minutes a month, we're still under a few $ so not worth spending two days to improve anything... yet.

> 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?

> is $0.002/minute a good price for this

I think a useful framing of this question is: would you run a c7gn.large instance just to do this orchestration?

Additionally, they could just self-host their code since code is data is a moat.

> 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.

This argument is disingenuous. Companies pay GitHub per seat for access to PR functionality etc. What's next, charging per repository? Because of a decision to no longer provide the repositories "for free"? It's not for free, you're paying already, it's included in the per-seat pricing. If you charge per seat then sometimes there are users who hardly use it and sometimes there are users who use it a lot. The per-seat pricing model is supposed to make the service profitable overall regardless of the usage levels of individual users.