6 ms·

Am I reading it right that the original Free Tier had a quota of 45,000GB? That seems absurdly high and not very sustainable (hence the change I assume).

bombcar 4y ago
That number sounds like "unlimited, but the system requires a number" kind of thing.
YorickPeterse 4y ago
No, originally there was no quota enforced to begin with if my memory serves me right. The limits discussed here are likely meant to gradually tighten up the limits, rather than immediately locking out projects that exceed these limits.
- uo21tp5hoyg 4y ago
  I guess an infinitely large storage quota is only slightly less sustainable than a 45,000GB one.
  - szundi 4y ago
    I won’t publish my gitlabfs plugin for 1.7k different programming languages then.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
I'm reading that as a "stop-the-bleeding" number; presumably there is someone out there with a 44TB repository and they want to impose initial quotas that don't actually impact anyone immediately. I guess someone has been backing up their movie collections to Gitlab or something.
- bluedino 4y ago
  One case I've seen on our local Gitlab server is someone in data science/HPC (accidentally?) adding the output of a solver to their repo. Easily hundreds or thousands of gigabytes of data.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    I had to learn svn surgery because someone imported a 1GB archive to test the ol' signed 32 bit file size bug, got yelled at, and deleted it. Well, except it's still in the repository, mate, it's just hidden. I replaced it with a fixture that was 2GB of space characters, which compressed down to about 3KB. I know there's a canonical file bomb zip file that's under 1K but there's clever and then there's clever.
vbezhenar 4y ago
I might be wrong about that but I'm pretty sure that I saw that limit (100 MB) when I was reading about GitLab plans in the past. They just didn't enforce it for some reason. IMO GitLab does the wrong thing. They should have enforced those limits from the beginning. And if they didn't, they should've eaten those expenses or at least grandfathered old repos.
- gabeio 4y ago
  > And if they didn't, they should've eaten those expenses or at least grandfathered old repos. Why should they eat the expenses of abusive users? As well they clearly have and are finally taking action about preventing it. Your entire post seems extremely entitled to their money.
  - oy6amn8RDPw8w9n 4y ago
john_cogs 4y ago
No, 45,000GB wasn’t a quota. At the moment, the 5GB limit is a soft limit, and the rollout plan included tiered enforcement. This is an internal implementation detail of our technical rollout plan.

bombcar 4y ago

That number sounds like "unlimited, but the system requires a number" kind of thing.

YorickPeterse 4y ago

No, originally there was no quota enforced to begin with if my memory serves me right. The limits discussed here are likely meant to gradually tighten up the limits, rather than immediately locking out projects that exceed these limits.

uo21tp5hoyg 4y ago
I guess an infinitely large storage quota is only slightly less sustainable than a 45,000GB one.
- szundi 4y ago
  I won’t publish my gitlabfs plugin for 1.7k different programming languages then.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

I'm reading that as a "stop-the-bleeding" number; presumably there is someone out there with a 44TB repository and they want to impose initial quotas that don't actually impact anyone immediately. I guess someone has been backing up their movie collections to Gitlab or something.

bluedino 4y ago
One case I've seen on our local Gitlab server is someone in data science/HPC (accidentally?) adding the output of a solver to their repo. Easily hundreds or thousands of gigabytes of data.
- hinkley 4y ago
  I had to learn svn surgery because someone imported a 1GB archive to test the ol' signed 32 bit file size bug, got yelled at, and deleted it. Well, except it's still in the repository, mate, it's just hidden. I replaced it with a fixture that was 2GB of space characters, which compressed down to about 3KB. I know there's a canonical file bomb zip file that's under 1K but there's clever and then there's clever.

vbezhenar 4y ago

I might be wrong about that but I'm pretty sure that I saw that limit (100 MB) when I was reading about GitLab plans in the past. They just didn't enforce it for some reason. IMO GitLab does the wrong thing. They should have enforced those limits from the beginning. And if they didn't, they should've eaten those expenses or at least grandfathered old repos.

gabeio 4y ago
> And if they didn't, they should've eaten those expenses or at least grandfathered old repos. Why should they eat the expenses of abusive users? As well they clearly have and are finally taking action about preventing it. Your entire post seems extremely entitled to their money.
- oy6amn8RDPw8w9n 4y ago

john_cogs 4y ago

No, 45,000GB wasn’t a quota. At the moment, the 5GB limit is a soft limit, and the rollout plan included tiered enforcement. This is an internal implementation detail of our technical rollout plan.