Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
GitLab CI vs GoCD: What are the differences?
Key Difference 1: Architecture and Scalability: GitLab CI is designed as a native part of GitLab, providing a single integrated platform for version control, issue tracking, and continuous integration. It uses a distributed architecture that allows horizontal scaling by adding more nodes to the system. On the other hand, GoCD is a standalone continuous delivery server that requires separate installation and configuration. It uses a master-agent architecture that can be scaled vertically by adding more resources to the master server but cannot be scaled horizontally like GitLab CI.
Key Difference 2: Pipeline Configuration: GitLab CI uses a YAML-based configuration file called
.gitlab-ci.yml
to define pipelines and jobs. The configuration file is stored along with the project's source code in the repository. GoCD, on the other hand, uses a graphical interface to define pipelines, stages, and tasks. The pipeline configuration is stored outside the project's source code in XML format, making it centralized and separate from the codebase.Key Difference 3: Plugin Ecosystem: GitLab CI has an extensive plugin ecosystem, with a wide range of community-developed plugins available for integration with other tools and services. These plugins can be used to extend the functionality of GitLab CI and integrate with various third-party services. GoCD also supports plugins, but the available options are more limited compared to GitLab CI. It primarily focuses on integrating with popular CI/CD tools and services rather than providing a wide range of plugins.
Key Difference 4: User Interface: GitLab CI provides a user-friendly web-based interface that is well-integrated with the GitLab platform. Users can easily navigate through pipelines, jobs, and artifacts, making it simple to visualize and monitor the CI/CD process. GoCD offers a web-based user interface as well, but it is not as user-friendly and intuitive as GitLab CI. The interface requires more technical expertise to configure and manage pipelines.
Key Difference 5: Agent Allocation and Load Balancing: GitLab CI allows dynamic and automatic allocation of CI/CD runners based on the project's needs. It also supports load balancing by distributing the workload across multiple runners. GoCD, on the other hand, requires manual configuration of agents and does not offer built-in load balancing functionality. The allocation and management of agents need to be manually handled by the administrators.
Key Difference 6: Integration with Version Control Systems: GitLab CI is tightly integrated with GitLab's version control system, providing seamless integration for source code management, issue tracking, and continuous integration. It is optimized for Git workflows and supports Git-specific features like GitLab's code review and merge request system. GoCD, on the other hand, supports integration with multiple version control systems, including Git, Subversion, Mercurial, and more. It provides flexibility for organizations using different version control systems.
In Summary, GitLab CI and GoCD differ in terms of architecture and scalability, pipeline configuration, plugin ecosystem, user interface, agent allocation and load balancing, and integration with version control systems.
I'm open to anything. just want something that break less and doesn't need me to pay for it, and can be hosted on Docker. our scripting language is powershell core. so it's better to support it. also we are building dotnet core in our pipeline, so if they have anything related that helps with the CI would be nice.
Google cloud build can help you. It is hosted on cloud and also provide reasonable free quota.
We are a mid-size startup running Scala apps. Moving from Jenkins/EC2 to Spinnaker/EKS and looking for a tool to cover our CI/CD needs. Our code lives on GitHub, artifacts in nexus, images in ECR.
Drone is out, GitHub actions are being considered along with Circle CI and GitLab CI.
We primarily need:
- Fast SBT builds (caching)
- Low maintenance overhead (ideally serverless)
- Everything as code
- Ease of use
I think I've tried most of the CI tools out there at some point. It took me a while to get around to Buildkite because at first I didn't see much point given it seemed like you had to run the agent yourself. Eventually it dawned on me why this approach was more ingenious than I realised:
Running my app in a production (or production-like) environment was already a solved problem, because everything was already in some form of "everything as code". Having a test environment where the only difference was adding the Buildkite agent was a trivial addition.
It means that dev/test/prod parity is simple to achieve and maintain. It's also proven to be much easier to support than trying to deal with the problems that come with trying to force an app to fit into the nuances and constraints that are imposed by the containers/runtime of a CI service. When you completely control all of the environment the tests are running in you define those constraints too. It's been a great balance between a managed service and the flexibility of running it yourself.
And while none of my needs have hit the scale of Shopify (I saw one of their engineers speak about it at a conference once, I can't find the video now though 😞) it's good to know I can scale out my worker nodes to hundreds of thousands of workers to reduce the time it takes for my tests to run.
I would recommend you to consider the JFrog Platform that includes JFrog Pipelines - it will allow you to manage the full artifact life cycle for your sbt, docker and other technologies, and automate all of your CI and CD using cloud native declarative yaml pipelines. Will integrate smoothly with all your other toolset.
more configurable to setup ci/cd: * It can provide caching when build sbt, just add this section to yml file * Easy to use, many documentation
Weakness: * Need use gitlab as repository to bring more powerful configuration
Buddy is one of the most easy-to-use tools for CI I ever met. When I needed to set up the pipeline I was really impressed with how easy it is to create it with Buddy with only a few moments. It's literally like: 1. Add repo 2. Click - Click - Click 3. You're done and your app is on prod :D The top feature that I've found is a simple integration with different notification channels - not only Slack (which is the one by default), but Telegram and Discord. The support is also neat - guys respond pretty quickly on even a small issue.
Pros of GitLab CI
- Robust CI with awesome Docker support22
- Simple configuration13
- All in one solution9
- Source Control and CI in one place7
- Integrated with VCS on commit5
- Free and open source5
- Easy to configure own build server i.e. GitLab-Runner5
- Hosted internally2
- Built-in Docker Registry1
- Built-in support of Review Apps1
- Pipeline could be started manually1
- Enable or disable pipeline by using env variables1
- Gitlab templates could be shared across logical group1
- Easy to setup the dedicated runner to particular job1
- Built-in support of Kubernetes1
Pros of GoCD
- Open source32
- Pipeline dependencies27
- Pipeline structures25
- Can run jobs in parallel22
- Very flexible20
- Plugin architecture15
- Environments can keep config secure13
- Great UI12
- Good user roles and permissions10
- Supports many material dependencies9
- Fan-in, Fan-out7
- Designed for cd not just ci6
- Empowers product people to make delivery decisions4
- Flexible & easy deployment2
- Pass around artifacts2
- Build once1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of GitLab CI
- Works best with GitLab repositories2
Cons of GoCD
- Lack of plugins2
- Horrible ui2
- No support1