I think the scaling issue here is understated. Compared to traditional scaling strategies that organizations use to perform, GAE provides alot of transparency. The premise of GAE is to put focus on development of applications. Thus, GAE is more developer focused. EC2 is a more general solution. Furthermore, I imagine instantiating more VMs is a form of network administration that doesn't exist in GAE ... unless your application is so advanced that it comes with logic to efficiently instantiate and shutdown VMs on its own.
On Nov 4, 11:20 am, sal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > EC2 also has a lot other usage than hosting a web site. You can use it > > for scientific computing, video transcoding, data mining and etc. > > I agree - you have a little more freedom / computing power / resources > than you do with GAE, and its pretty cheap. A quick lookthrough on > Amazon's site shows EC2's lowend costing $0.10 per hour (ten cents an > hour) to use. And you can shut it down/start it up whenever you want > so you don't incur much cost while 'playing around' in the beginning. > > I did like being able to 'dive in' to GAE just using my Google login > and start playing around - but EC2 seems more practical for real world > use yet. There needs to be more to make GAE something viable... or > maybe Google's not really aiming to compete on the 'high end' cloud > computing arena, more just to give a place for people to create Google > Gadgets? (In that case it should be named 'Google Gadget Engine'!!) > But I don't think that's the case, I must be missing something =) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
