4 ms·
I've used Gitlab for personal projects on a small homelab server. I ran the VM with about 1GB of Memory and 1 vCPU (a Core i3 if I recall correctly). Loading a
by tscs37 9y ago
I've used Gitlab for personal projects on a small homelab server. I ran the VM with about 1GB of Memory and 1 vCPU (a Core i3 if I recall correctly).
Loading a page could load almost instantly but most of the time it did load after 2 or 3 seconds.
Gitlab does not work well when resources are scarce, it does require a bit of a beefy server to get fast and reactive, atleast in my experience.
I've found Gitea/Gogs to be a product more focused on running something like Gitlab with much less resources.
- snorremd 9y agoI think Gitlab recommends a 4GB of memory and suspect this helps with caching and thus page loads. In an organizational context it should not be too hard to throw hardware at the problem. In my organization we run a Gitlab instance with at least 20 active users (70 users total) and quite a lot of repositories and usually it runs quite fast. This is on 8GB of memory and 2 cores. For personal and home use Gitea/Gogs is probably a better choice indeed. As you point out it runs with much fewer resources and as an added bonus it runs as a single go binary which simplifies hosting it tremendously. You could literally just download the binary and run "$ ./gitea web". Gitlab is another beast in that respect, especially if you do not opt for their Omnibus install.
- Karunamon 9y agoPart of this is due to Gitlab's being a Rails app. Large Rails applications are many things, but resource efficient isn't one of them. It's just the nature of the language.
- hardwaresofton 9y agoI wish they would rewrite it to something else. Yes, the app is very likely not CPU bound, but I just can't find myself believing in ruby+rails to ever be "fast". However, I'm also very biased against rails so I generally try to ignore the fact that it's a rails app.