GitHub Linux ARM64 hosted runners now available for free in public repositories
23 comments
·January 16, 2025kylegalbraith
This is exciting to see as arm64 is really a growing space, as we've seen since first launching our Docker image build acceleration [0]. Free for public repos is definitely a strong pull if you can live with some of the quirks.
Even with this, building multi-platform Docker images with fast persistent caching in GitHub Actions will still be slow in the worst case and tedious in the best case.
We've also expanded into GitHub Actions runners, bringing our fast caching and faster compute into the actual runner.
We've done some cool things like making caching and disk access faster using ramdisks, Ceph, and blob storage [1]. We're offering Intel, ARM, and macOS runners at half the cost of what GitHub offers to private repos. We're also focused on accelerating even more builds outside of the runner. [2]
[0] https://depot.dev/products/container-builds
[1] https://depot.dev/blog/introducing-github-actions-ultra-runn...
eltondegeneres
Your landing and product pages don't mention macOS, only the pricing page, but the docs make it look like the macOS runners are the same price as Github's.
geerlingguy
This is excellent news, as it should unblock having precompiled packages available for a number of applications for arm64—for me, most notably, OpenZFS: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/14511
sebazzz
Was cross compilation not an option?
0x457
I'm probably wrong, but I think this kind of cross-compilation requires a nested virtualization and GHA hosted runners don't support it.
Cyph0n
GHA can do nested virt via KVM. Here is an action that runs a test that boots up a VM running NixOS: https://github.com/aksiksi/compose2nix/blob/main/.github/wor...
You can also run QEMU if you want to build for ARM (although this announcement makes this unnecessary): https://github.com/aksiksi/ncdmv/blob/aa108a1c1e2c14a13dfbc0...
AlotOfReading
You can do cross compilation in GitHub actions and testing on QEMU is straightforward. I have a repo that builds for and tests half a dozen emulated targets.
yjftsjthsd-h
Why would it need virtualization at all? The point of cross-compiling is that you build binaries for a different arch/platform, ex. running gcc as an x86_64 binary on an x86_64 host turning C into aarch64 binaries.
agartner
Here's a quick example I put together on how to use these runners to accelerate docker builds: https://github.com/gartnera/actions-arm64-native-example
jimmydoe
amazing, exactly what I was looking for. thank you
suryao
For cheaper (for private repos) and faster arm64 runners, check out what we're making at WarpBuild.
We also support spinning up self-hosted runners on your AWS/gcp/azure in just a couple of clicks.
bhollis
We're using Go, so cross-compilation has never been a big problem (for producing artifacts). But this'll be great for testing on ARM. I'm interested to see the performance of these instances too - our experience has been that Amazon's Graviton processors have fantastic bang-for-buck vs. Intel/AMD.
yjftsjthsd-h
It may be worth checking the price and performance numbers; it might be worth running builds on ARM and cross-compiling your x86 binaries (based on https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/arm64-on-gith... claiming 37% cheaper).
CaliforniaKarl
This is awesome!!!
I switched from an Intel Mac to an Apple Silicon Mac a few months ago, and have been trying to do as much stuff as possible on ARM.
One thing this should do, is make people think more about switching their cloud-based workflows to ARM CPUs, which are generally less expensive.
amacneil
For private repos, Github runners are slow and overpriced. We switched to buildjet.com runners and have no regrets.
FooBarWidget
Thanks for the recommendation
mystified5016
Our CI runners live on a box in the corner of the office and their only operating cost is my time.
Paying someone for CI compute seems insane. The load is so variable that you never know if your monthly bill will be zero or several hundred/thousand dollars. I especially don't want my employees to consider that each and every push costs the company a nonzero amount of money. CI should be totally free and unrestricted. If a new employee has a really bad day and fires off a hundred CI runs (as we all have), I don't want to explain to accounting why there's an enormous spike in the bill.
It costs us a couple of my salaried hours a month to maintain our on-site infra. Far, far less than our present AWS bill. Most months it needs no attention. It just sits there and does its job. Hell, it's even solar powered.
lbotos
Ok.
You could:
- host your own set of static runners on AWS -- which, have a fixed monthly cost.
- pay a provider for hosted runners -- most providers bill in CI Minutes. So you will run out of minutes if jobs run amok, not run up your bill.
- Set up auto-scaling runners that ebb and flow based on demand. This case is the one that represents the risk you are describing of an unexpected bill increase.
2/3 cases of "paying someone else for CI compute" are just as predictable as your solution cost-wise. Yours could be cheaper, but the risk of "unexpected bill increase" is not really there.
verdverm
This is awesome, I have been dealing with weird errors in GHA for years when having to emulate for multi arch builds
mlhpdx
Nice. I had gone looking for this a week or two ago and was surprised it wasn’t available to me.
While this is great, for people claiming they can now built multi-arch images without emulation, how are you planning on doing so? As far as I know, if you want to build multi-arch images on native runners for each platform, you basically need to:
* Configure a workflow with 1 job for each arch, each building a standalone single-arch image, tagging it with a unique tag, and pushing each to your registry
* Configure another job which runs at the completion of the previous jobs that creates a combined manifest containing each image using `docker manifest create`.
Basically, doing the steps listed in https://www.docker.com/blog/multi-arch-build-and-images-the-... under "The hard way with docker manifest ".
Does anyone have a better approach, or some reusable workflows/GHA that make this process simpler? I know about Depot.dev which basically abstracts the runners away and handles all of this for you, but I don't see a good way to do this yourself without GitHub offering some better abstraction for building docker images.
Edit: I just noticed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42729529 which has a great example of exactly these steps (and I just realized you can just push the digests, instead of tags too, which is nice).