[Aeolun]

> Additional units can be purchased from the GitLab Customer Portal at $60/year for 10GB

$6/year per GB. My Backblaze costs me $0.06/year per GB, so it’s only a factor of 100 more expensive.

Am I the only one that thinks that’s pretty insane?

What I think is even stranger, is that the number of users you pay for apparently has no effect on your storage allowance. Whether there’s 1 or a 100 accounts, the limit is the same.

[arinlen]

> Am I the only one that thinks that’s pretty insane?

Their pricing model might not be designed to cover only storage. Pretty much all features from GitLab are loss leaders, including computing costs and developing/maintaining a CICD system that arguably is by far the best in the world. At the end of the day the money needs to come from somewhere, and you don't get that cash flow by offering everything for free.

[Ayesh]

> by far the best in the world

Bold opinion. I extensively use GitHub actions and GitLab CI on a daily basis, and I am slowly liking GitHub Actions more. GitLab CI is much more straight forward if you have your own Docker image, but the mix and match approach in GitHub actions, despite the configuration complexity, is more robust in my opinion.

That said, my rudimentary knack is that GitLab CI tend to be quite fast in their free hosted runners. I have CI jobs completing in under a minute on some setups that otherwise take 2-3 minutes on GitHub hosted runners. This could be because I use a custom container image on GitLab, that basically requires no additional tooling setup.

[arinlen]

> GitLab CI is much more straight forward if you have your own Docker image

In my experience GitLab is straight-forward in all of its happy path, which happens to be exactly what all developers need to do: build software, push build artifacts, run tests, and in the case of services deploy stuff somewhere else.

With GitLab anyone can set their fully working CICD pipeline from scratch after a quick googling, which is absolutely not possible with GitHub actions.

The only downside of GitLab is their pricing model. If it wasn't for GitLab's not-so generous free tier, there wouldn't be any reason to bother looking at alternatives like GitHub and the like.

[teruakohatu]

The pricing does seem unusual. Dropbox is also $0.06/year GB. A dev/b2b servicing charging 100x as much as a consumer service seems very strange.

At least they could charge in increments if 1 or 2GB.

[sluongng]

I think its simply a reselling of GCP storage services with overhead cost of their backup redundancy and SRE on-call.

But even with all that, 6GB per year definitely make you question the value of using Gitlab Container Registry vs Your Cloud of choice similar offering.

[xani_]

They simply know the storage limit is the one users will most likely exceed first so having all of it bundled instead of separate price for storage and for "compute" would net them less money.

From their perspective it's basically "as long as it is cheaper than customer paying someone to set up gitlab instance"

[arinlen]

> Dropbox is also $0.06/year GB.

Dropbox is 10€/month, which comes with a max cap of 2TB for what amounts to cold storage for docs that are rarely touched.

GitLab comes at 20€/month, and comes with a max cap of 50GB for files that are actively edited.

Comparing GB is disingenuous as the usecases involving storage are hardly comparable.

[nine_k]

Aren't you comparing block storage (mountable as an efficient file system) and object storage?

[Aeolun]

Yeah, it’s not apples to apples. I didn’t mean to imply it it. I just thought the multiple was a bit crazy.