GitHub Community
LFS to Metered Billing FAQ #61362
Replies: 44 comments 13 replies
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
-
|
Hi, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@benhatton-unsw-edu-au - We are addressing this issue as apart of Billing vNext. We are currently working on it and should be available in fall this year. Happy to jump on a call to discuss further. Thank you. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks Sree, that's great news. If you need customer insight into requirements then I am at your call. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It is now November, did a roll out of this improved billing happen? Or has it been delayed? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hello! Sounds like a great change. Do we know when we can communicate this with customers? I had a ticket today funnily enough on this exact topic. I told the customer about the old data packs pricing model, but I'm wondering if I can share any of this? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Customer communications went out this week by email to any customer who will still receive a bill after the changes. (Many customers' usage will be covered by the newly-enlarged free tier 🎉) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hello! 👋 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Will the spending caps still exist? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, they will be call as 'Budgets' going forward. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Do archived repositories count towards the quota? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes. This will be unchanged from today's data pack behavior. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Please allow LFS usage to be optionally metered to the ones who are using the quota, rather than the repo owner. There are public archived repos out there that are non-functional because of the metering rules. You guys want to get paid - that's the goal. Does it really matter who is going to pay you? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
-
|
On the Enterprise Settings --> Billing page, what exactly do those numbers for Actions, Packages, Storage for Actions and Packages, Codespaces Monthly Usage, Copilot monthly usage and GitLFS represent. Is it from start of month to when I run the report? For the last 30 days? For the previous full-month? And how do I get these for months before that so I can record and start to spot trends where we might have to pay for more in the future? And, are there any updates on enforcement dates? Financial planning changes like this require large lead times in big companies. Thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Can we at least get an update putting it anywhere in time, @ettaboyle? Is it likely this is going to happen this year? Q12024? Ever? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Any update for schedule? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Is it possible to use github repository with an external git LFS server for large files? 😄 💸 if the git repo stores only links to files, could it simply store links to files residing on our aws servers or something like that? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
-
|
Hello, how is the LFS spending named in a billing report? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo... Is it happening? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I am now doubting this transition. Hasn't happened on the announced date, and now it's silent around it.., |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This is still listed on Githubs public roadmap for a https://github.com/orgs/github/projects/4247/views/1?pane=issue&itemId=184432 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It was updated two weeks ago to say I wish this thread was updated as well by the team with the timeline change, which will probably end up being postponed to Q4 2024 based on this track record. I guess I'll just keep buying data packs to cover bandwidth. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
recently talked to a support person about LFS related things, he mentioned this billing change will be rolled out one day but they have no ETA |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
A month ago I was able to go into the https://github.com/pricing/calculator and calculate a price estimate for a team with a need for a certain LFS size. It said something like a Team has 250GB LFS included, if I remember correctly. I am a little worried, since we are starting this project now, and would like to have an idea of what the cost would be, how we will pay it, and when it is available. And if LFS is a viable option with github.com going forward. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You don't really need to push LFS content to github if you have such a large size of data, especially because you'll pay not only for storage but also the bandwidth back and forth from github and your CI runners (in case you run self hosted CI). So that's also costly and need to account for (let's say you pull 200 gigs for each branch build, etc' might get a surprise bill 😄 ). But you can store LFS in any server, Vultr, DigitalOcean, aws/azure/GCP, whatever works for you. Just deploy Nexus or any of the other solutions listed here https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/wiki/Implementations and point your repo LFS remote to it, instead of github.com. While your main content remains in github, the LFS will be free since it's not involved at all (you self-host). For Vultr example (not a financial advice 🤣 just rough estimation) you get an instance with whatever 2-4 cpu, for 24-30$/month, and at that point all your LFS expenses end (without surprise bills) as long as you run CI within same region in Vultr in same network with your LFS server. The content of github.com repo is free up to 100gb hard limit (confirmed by support representative, I tried to figure it our for myself) so you can also go ahead and push whatever you need as long as single files are <100mb (hard limit per file afaik), and the rest goes to local LFS server. With this setup you end up free-for-free 💯 on github repo and pay only your server costs, and if it's LFS on-premises hardware server then you're Gucci for as long as it runs ✔️ To redirect your LFS from github to a local server just modify personally I used Nexus in the past and I think it's a good choice (didn't use for LFS but I see it's supported there now https://help.sonatype.com/repomanager3/nexus-repository-administration/formats/git-lfs-repositories and Nexus overall is a breeze to install and manage, I liked it). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Will there be a way to set a Spending Limit on metered LFS bandwidth like you can for Actions & Packages? I'm not concerned with the storage aspect, but the bandwidth is totally out of my control for public repos and could easily hit 100s of GB of traffic as interest in the repo picks up. I'm hoping to remove LFS from my project entirely, but while deinitializing LFS for my repo is simple enough the docs essentially say that to fully clear your LFS objects server-side you need to nuke the repo (not helpful) or contact customer support (pray for me). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
-
|
Hi! These changes sound fantastic. However, the fact that LFS checkouts in GitHub Actions workflows count towards the LFS bandwidth usage remains a major blocker for me adopting GitHub's LFS in any of my projects. Do you have any plans to change this? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@tuves Is there any update you can provide on when the billing scheme will change for LFS, as you described above? Our team is incurring high costs on LFS bandwidth and will have likely move away from tracking our test collateral with git if the new pricing scheme isn't rolled out soon. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
and others
-
What is happening?
Git LFS is moving from a pre-paid, quota-based billing model (data packs) to a post-paid, usage-based billing model (metered billing). Also, GitHub is raising the free, included amount of Git LFS resources to 10GiB storage and bandwidth for Free and Pro accounts and 250GiB storage and bandwidth for Team and Enterprise accounts.
We are shifting to a universal bill date for all products. Billing dates will align on the first day of each month. As an existing GitHub customer, your balance will be prorated once to align with the new universal bill date.
Why is Git LFS moving to metered billing?
To align with our other product lines that leverage bandwidth and storage, as well as to allow LFS to be Microsoft Azure Commit to Consume (MACC) eligible.
What will happen to data packs?
GitHub will discontinue selling data packs.
When is Git LFS moving to Metered Billing?
On August 31, 2023, GitHub alerted you of our plan to change the billing method for Git Large File Storage (Git LFS) from customer purchased Data Packs to metered billing. Git LFS customers will also be onboarded to the new billing platform.
Important
In order to provide the smoothest transition, we will no longer shift the billing method on the original date of October 1, 2023. As the new method and timeline are confirmed, we will provide updates.
What is Git LFS?
Large File Storage
What is changing with the Git LFS Entitlements?
GitHub is increasing the amount of free storage and bandwidth for Git LFS. GitHub customers with Team and Enterprise plans will receive 250GiB of storage and 250GiB of bandwidth per month. (Yes, that is a 250x increase.) GitHub Free and Pro users will receive 10GiB of storage and 10GiB of bandwidth per month (a 10x increase).
Will customers receive a refund for unused Data Packs?
No, however, customers will receive credit for the unused portion of their data packs. We will not be issuing refunds for unused data packs.
How can customers check their Git LFS usage?
Link to instructions to view your Git LFS use.
Will customers have to pay for previously used and unbilled Git LFS use?
No, customers will only receive a bill for their monthly use starting in the month when LFS metered billing takes effect.
How can customers control their costs for Git LFS?
Like other GitHub features, Git LFS will have a budget you can set to control costs. The budget defaults to zero for customers with no payment method on file. For all other customers, the budget is unlimited. You can take these steps to help manage your Git LFS bill.
How much is Git LFS going to cost after the switch?
Each GiB of data downloaded will be charged at $0.0875 USD. For storage, pricing will match GitHub Codespaces at $0.07 per GiB. Storage is billed by calculating an hourly usage rate. So, for example, assume you used 1GiB above the free entitlement for the first 15 days of April, then used 2GiB starting from the 16th. We would calculate your usage as:
Therefore, we would bill for 1.5 GiB storage for the month of April.
How will my bill change?
Coming soon, visit the GitHub Pricing Calculator, where you can calculate your LFS usage costs.
I see some places that use GB and others that use GiB. Why?
GitHub has always internally used GiB (1024^3 bytes) when measuring LFS. Previously, we used the abbreviation “GB” when talking about this externally but are taking this opportunity to also be more precise with our terminology. “GB” properly refers to a power of 10 (1000^3 bytes). Nothing is changing in how we actually measure or account for bytes stored and transmitted, only in how we publicly refer to these quantities.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions