News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by hedgehog on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @01:21PM (#46292153)
I'm curious, what are you doing that has over 1000 hours a month of action runtime?
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by featherless on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @01:24PM (#46292226)
I run a local Valhalla build cluster to power the https://sidecar.clutch.engineering routing engine. The cluster runs daily and takes a significant amount of wall-clock time to build the entire planet. That's about 50% of my CI time; the other 50% is presubmits + App Store builds for Sidecar + CANStudio / ELMCheck.

Using GitHub actions to coordinate the Valhalla builds was a nice-to-have, but this is a deal-breaker for my pull request workflows.

Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by hedgehog on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @02:13PM (#46292970)
Cool, that looks a lot nicer than the OBD scanner app I've been using.
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by Eikon on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @01:27PM (#46292291)
On ZeroFS [0] I am doing around 80 000 minutes a month.

A lot of it is wasted in build time though, due to a lack of appropriate caching facilities with GitHub actions.

[0] https://github.com/Barre/ZeroFS/tree/main/.github/workflows

Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by hedgehog on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @02:29PM (#46293180)
ZeroFS looks really good. I know a bit about this design space but hadn't run across ZeroFS yet. Do you do testing of the error recovery behavior (connectivity etc)?
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by Eikon on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @02:59PM (#46293605)
This has been mostly manual testing for now. ZeroFS currently lacks automatic fault injection and proper crash tests, and it’s an area I plan to focus on.

SlateDB, the lower layer, already does DST as well as fault injection though.

Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by featherless on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @01:30PM (#46292319)
I found that implementing a local cache on the runners has been helpful. Ingress/egress on local network is hella slow, especially when each build has ~10-20GB of artifacts to manage.
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by esafak on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @02:23PM (#46293107)
What do you use for the local cache?
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by featherless on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @02:25PM (#46293133)
Just wrote about my approach yesterday: https://jeffverkoeyen.com/blog/2025/12/15/SlotWarmedCaching/

tl;dr uses a local slot-based cache that is pre-warmed after every merge to main, taking Sidecar builds from ~10-15 minutes to <60 seconds.

Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by theLiminator on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @01:58PM (#46292728)
Wow, that's a very cool project.
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by Eikon on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @02:09PM (#46292890)
Thank you!
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by duped on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @02:02PM (#46292790)
1 hour build/test time, 20 devs, that's 50 runs a month. Totally possible.
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by gheltllck on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @09:49PM (#46297678)
GH actions templates don’t build all branches by default. I guess it’s due to them not wanting the free tier to use to much resources. But I consider it an anti-pattern to not build everything at each push.
Re:Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions by sunnyday_002 on Wednesday December 17, 2025 @05:24AM (#46300232)
That is because GH Actions is event based, that is more powerful and flexible than just triggering on every push and not letting it be configured.

``` on: push ```

is the event trigger to act on every push.

You'll waste a lot of CI on building everything in my opinion, I only really care about the pull request.