4 ms·

Yeah, being unable to host Gitlab under 512MB is just too bloaty for me. I know Gogs doesn't have this issue for the same features I use. I still use Gitlab tho

by jackyb 10y ago

Yeah, being unable to host Gitlab under 512MB is just too bloaty for me. I know Gogs doesn't have this issue for the same features I use. I still use Gitlab though because it's the mainstream.

merb 10y ago
well we use it because alternatives that costs money always takes years to finish a simple feature and tell people that they can extend it via their plugin repository. and we also use it for their CI integration. It's just simpler than setting up a Jenkins instance for simple jobs (well gitlab ci is slower but not so much that it is painful)
- randallsquared 10y ago
  GitLab CI is even slower than Jenkins? It's been on my list of alternatives to evaluate, but I guess I'll just push it further down the stack...
  - jobvandervoort 10y ago
    I'm not sure why anyone would say GitLab CI is slow. You run it on any machine you want, so it's fully dependent on that. The script that authenticates and picks up the job is a small Golang app. That's all. GitLab executes CI jobs immediately. See the architecture and related links here: https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-ci/#architecture https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-ci/#architecture
    - merb 10y ago
      well gitlab ci is slower on our machine than jenkins. also push based ci might be better for performance when having many workers. while gitlab ci is pull based which can net in negative performance. of course pull based is way less painful when nodes go down/etc.. actually the biggest problems of slowness also comes from docker and caching. I think our docker setup for jenkins/gitlab-ci is not equal. for some jobs we will probably migrate away from docker, as soon as we are able to have a good story for running parallel tests.
  - orf 10y ago
    It's not noticeably slower, and it's really easy to roll out more workers and expand capacity.

4 ms·

Yeah, being unable to host Gitlab under 512MB is just too bloaty for me. I know Gogs doesn't have this issue for the same features I use. I still use Gitlab tho

by jackyb 10y ago

Yeah, being unable to host Gitlab under 512MB is just too bloaty for me. I know Gogs doesn't have this issue for the same features I use. I still use Gitlab though because it's the mainstream.

merb 10y ago
well we use it because alternatives that costs money always takes years to finish a simple feature and tell people that they can extend it via their plugin repository. and we also use it for their CI integration. It's just simpler than setting up a Jenkins instance for simple jobs (well gitlab ci is slower but not so much that it is painful)
- randallsquared 10y ago
  GitLab CI is even slower than Jenkins? It's been on my list of alternatives to evaluate, but I guess I'll just push it further down the stack...
  - jobvandervoort 10y ago
    I'm not sure why anyone would say GitLab CI is slow. You run it on any machine you want, so it's fully dependent on that. The script that authenticates and picks up the job is a small Golang app. That's all. GitLab executes CI jobs immediately. See the architecture and related links here: https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-ci/#architecture https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-ci/#architecture
    - merb 10y ago
      well gitlab ci is slower on our machine than jenkins. also push based ci might be better for performance when having many workers. while gitlab ci is pull based which can net in negative performance. of course pull based is way less painful when nodes go down/etc.. actually the biggest problems of slowness also comes from docker and caching. I think our docker setup for jenkins/gitlab-ci is not equal. for some jobs we will probably migrate away from docker, as soon as we are able to have a good story for running parallel tests.
  - orf 10y ago
    It's not noticeably slower, and it's really easy to roll out more workers and expand capacity.