Our org is showing around 200-300$/mo in added fees and we are exclusively self hosting in our own on premise cluster. Kind of wild we have to pay to use our own compute.
In fairness to Github, bringing your own runners isn't "free" on their end. The orchestration happens server-side, so there is some level of cost. I don't know if that justifies the $0.002/min price - just wanted to point this out.
Oh absolutely, but honestly the self hosted runner setups that I'm familiar with are just waiting for a call. As far as I can tell GH side just routes.
if you were only paying to use your own compute, you could just use your own compute - you don't have to use github actions, you can trigger actions on your own systems without github.
the control plane clearly has value to people beyond the compute used for running the actions, and it seems reasonable that they should charge for that if you're using it.
We use locally generated certs for Mtls with different lifetimes. Relying on public CAs for chains of trust like that makes me nervous, especially if something gets revoked.
I've been operating a relatively small digital platform for 15 years. We don't use Cloudflare, for bots, we use tirreno (1), which we specifically created to filter malicious traffic.
For hosting, we use a local and sovereign EU provider.
If tomorrow Cloudflare, Amazon, and Microsoft were to somehow disappear or go permanently down, I wouldn't even notice.
It's more advantageous long term for them to be oblivious to it. Ultimately gives them what they want which is reduced supply and increased pricing for them.
The cynic in me thinks this would be a convenient way for these memory producers to manufacture demand, while also making OpenAI look good on paper. It’s not like they haven’t been caught price fixing in the past. Win win for these companies and a loss for everyone else.
On paper this makes OpenAI look like absolute assholes. Like they have realized that all of their potential competitors will be memory constrained and have poured billions of dollars into making sure that happens instead of using that money to improve their own product.
If manufacturing fake demand (warehousing 900,000 memory wafers per month?) doubles and triples customer prices, it would decrease real demand, hurting the manufacturers after the artificial demand ends.
I think I explained that poorly. Basically artificially reducing supply so that these manufactures can get more for less. They've been caught doing it in the past before between each other, so why not use OpenAI as a bridge for that.
Fake demand? Either they’re selling the RAM or they’re not. They don’t make money by pretending to sell into fake demand. They make money by selling chips. A sale is a sale.
