Question

An enterprise administrator reviews the monthly Actions metered usage report and notices a sharp cost increase driven by one organization's CI workflows. Investigation shows these workflows run on GitHub-hosted 16-core larger runners, but the jobs are lightweight lint and unit-test steps that complete in under three minutes and never approach CPU or memory limits. The team originally chose larger runners hoping to speed up builds. What is the most appropriate optimization the administrator should recommend to reduce cost without harming these workflows?

Accepted Answer

Move the jobs to standard GitHub-hosted runners, since larger runners bill at a higher per-minute multiplier that is unjustified for jobs that do not consume the extra resources

Answer

Enable a shorter Actions log retention period for the organization to lower the per-minute billing rate on the larger runners

Answer

Convert the workflows to self-hosted runners so that the larger-runner minutes are removed from the metered usage report entirely at no cost

Answer

Increase the concurrency limit on the larger runners so the same minutes are spread across more jobs and reduce the per-minute charge