6 ms·

5 gigs? what is this, repo hosting for ants?

by whoomp12342 4y ago

bluedino 4y ago
That does seem ridiculously small. It's probably fine for 95% of projects though.
- hinkley 4y ago
  That will depend on how well they handle forks. I could easily see myself exceeding such a limit just issuing bug fixes. Especially since one of the bugs I'm likely to fix is, "why is this library so damned big?"
  - tomjakubowski 4y ago
    Shrinking the library won't make the repo any smaller. You have to erase history to do that.
    - hinkley 4y ago
      Yeah I thought that might be confusing. Artifact size depends on what garbage from the project infrastructure gets included into the artifact. So simple things like not having a fully populated ignore file will cause things to get included into the project or the artifact. People who don't care about file size don't care about file size. If the artifact is ridiculous, sometimes the repo is ridiculous too. Therefore if you take a bunch of projects with outsized artifacts, you are going to have above average repository sizes as well.
  - john_cogs 4y ago
    GitLab team member here. Forks of projects get deduplicated, so only the changes you make will contribute to your storage consumption as long as the fork relationship is maintained.
    - john_cogs 4y ago
      Update: our team recently identified an issue impacting how we calculate storage which results in forks being counted towards Usage Quota. This will be addressed before we begin enforcement.
- prepend 4y ago
  I need solutions that fit 100% of my projects. I don’t want to use service X for 95% and service Y for 5%.
  - ozim 4y ago
    You are also willing to pay for it? Because it sounds like you want to use 100% of the service and not pay for it.
  - elcomet 4y ago
    Then you can pay for more data, seems fair no?
- duskwuff 4y ago
  Git change compression is quite effective. Unless you start checking in large binaries, most companies will never get close to 5 GB. (Even 1 GB is a pretty substantial amount of code.)
Jensson 4y ago
That is what github has now, doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary.
- jacooper 4y ago
  That per repo, GitLab's is for the whole account.
oy6amn8RDPw8w9n 4y ago
Most repo's are in the singles or tens of MB. If those are ants, then sure.
- whoomp12342 4y ago
  I dont disagree with that, especially given the assertion that artifact storage from pipelines does not count towards the 54gb, it just feels like a tiny amount for 2022. just bumping it to like 20gb would make me feel better even though it doesnt really matter.
xeromal 4y ago
Do personal accounts really have 5gigs of code??? Unless you have a lot of models/artifacts, images, plain text code should be well under 5gb for 100s of projects
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Where this will really hit is the docker image registry. The lazy CI implementations will just tag a new image every single commit and leave them sitting there forever. Hundreds of megs each, completely useless. In a way I'm almost glad people will have to start cleaning up after themselves.

5 gigs? what is this, repo hosting for ants?

bluedino 4y ago

That does seem ridiculously small. It's probably fine for 95% of projects though.

hinkley 4y ago
That will depend on how well they handle forks. I could easily see myself exceeding such a limit just issuing bug fixes. Especially since one of the bugs I'm likely to fix is, "why is this library so damned big?"
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  Shrinking the library won't make the repo any smaller. You have to erase history to do that.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Yeah I thought that might be confusing. Artifact size depends on what garbage from the project infrastructure gets included into the artifact. So simple things like not having a fully populated ignore file will cause things to get included into the project or the artifact. People who don't care about file size don't care about file size. If the artifact is ridiculous, sometimes the repo is ridiculous too. Therefore if you take a bunch of projects with outsized artifacts, you are going to have above average repository sizes as well.
- john_cogs 4y ago
  GitLab team member here. Forks of projects get deduplicated, so only the changes you make will contribute to your storage consumption as long as the fork relationship is maintained.
  - john_cogs 4y ago
    Update: our team recently identified an issue impacting how we calculate storage which results in forks being counted towards Usage Quota. This will be addressed before we begin enforcement.
prepend 4y ago
I need solutions that fit 100% of my projects. I don’t want to use service X for 95% and service Y for 5%.
- ozim 4y ago
  You are also willing to pay for it? Because it sounds like you want to use 100% of the service and not pay for it.
- elcomet 4y ago
  Then you can pay for more data, seems fair no?
duskwuff 4y ago
Git change compression is quite effective. Unless you start checking in large binaries, most companies will never get close to 5 GB. (Even 1 GB is a pretty substantial amount of code.)

Jensson 4y ago

That is what github has now, doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary.

jacooper 4y ago
That per repo, GitLab's is for the whole account.

oy6amn8RDPw8w9n 4y ago

Most repo's are in the singles or tens of MB. If those are ants, then sure.

whoomp12342 4y ago
I dont disagree with that, especially given the assertion that artifact storage from pipelines does not count towards the 54gb, it just feels like a tiny amount for 2022. just bumping it to like 20gb would make me feel better even though it doesnt really matter.

xeromal 4y ago

Do personal accounts really have 5gigs of code??? Unless you have a lot of models/artifacts, images, plain text code should be well under 5gb for 100s of projects

Gigachad 4y ago
Where this will really hit is the docker image registry. The lazy CI implementations will just tag a new image every single commit and leave them sitting there forever. Hundreds of megs each, completely useless. In a way I'm almost glad people will have to start cleaning up after themselves.