Why do you think that?
GitHub Actions is 'simpler' to scale, it's just a bunch of runners, and Azure has a lot of capacity for VMs (mostly). Git itself is a compute intensive process and is far more interlinked.
GitHub Actions is 'simpler' to scale, it's just a bunch of runners, and Azure has a lot of capacity for VMs (mostly). Git itself is a compute intensive process and is far more interlinked.
Actions are unbounded, take minutes to resolve - sometimes hours and there are megabytes, gigabytes of network transactions.
Scaling commits is a load balancer and some more instances of a thing you’ve built over and over.
Scaling actions is VMs, networking, imbalances in load, memory, insuring that folks aren’t running VM training against your infrastructure. Oh, and maybe you want to make sure folks aren’t trying to hack that infrastructure as well.
It is a very, very hard problem.
> Scaling actions is VMs, networking, imbalances in load, memory, insuring that folks aren’t running VM training against your infrastructure.
That infra scaling is what the cloud provider can easily offer.
Meanwhile, GitHub repos/issues/PRs is all the business logic that they've written, evolved over time.
Many coupled distributed DBs, indexes, consistency concerns, etc.
That's trickier to scale.