Thread

1. classictraffic · 1790022733 · focus · HN ↗

   > Moving our workloads off GitHub Actions to third-party runners with faster CPUs, higher-performance storage, and better cache infrastructure gave us faster machines to run the same pipeline on

   Yeah, was not surprised to read this. Actions is convenient if you already use GitHub, but it can also be pretty slow. Given reliability is also a major issue with GitHub these days I expect to see more orgs moving to different pipelines

   1. speedgoose · 1790023553 · focus · HN ↗

      I wonder how much faster GitHub actions could be if they weren’t running on Azure. Because Azure is either slow or very expensive.

      1. chris_money202 · 1790028117 · focus · HN ↗

         I think its actually because GitHub isn't solely running on Azure. They are currently using a mix of on prem, AWS, and Azure. The Azure migration has been a challenge with Azure running into capacity issues due to AI load.
      2. stackskipton · 1790043054 · focus · HN ↗

         It's not Azure as much as self-hosted runners are basement bin servers on clearly massively oversubscribed machines.
      3. rtpg · 1790053308 · focus · HN ↗

         to be fair all CI providers I've had the pleasure of working with have gnarly performance profiles for the boxes they provide.

         I don't think it's out of malice, but I do feel uncomfortable with the fact that the people who sell me the CI coordination software also sell me the minutes for the boxes that run the CI software. There's _some_ alignment of interests but not as much as I would want!

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.