The word "scalability" seems to have been a hangup.

Instead, if you'd said "a LAMP version of {application} running on a
single PC can handle {amount} load and a comparable GAE version can
handle {amount} load", folks would have focussed on the relative
amounts and we'd be talking about how to increase them.  There would
have been some quibbles about the capacity of the PC, network latency,
and the like, but I think that the conversation would have been more
productive than "GAE scales and a PC doesn't".

"Scalability" is something of a red-herring.  It doesn't matter if a
PC scales if GAE tops out before said PC.  Why GAE appears to be
topping out for this application seems like a good thing to find out.

On Nov 8, 2:13 am, David Underhill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The process of creating a toy application to test its limits can be
> interesting in and of itself.  It obviously isn't necessary to
> understand the limitations and advantages of GAE, but one might also
> learn something.  For me, experimenting with how GAE can scale has
> been an interesting thought experiment.
>
> All the best,
>
> ~ David
>
> On Nov 7, 8:17 pm, Ross Ridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > David Underhill wrote:
> > > Exactly.  It is just a simple thought experiment.
>
> > It seems utterly pointless to me.  Google App Engine has the potential
> > to scale, a single PC doesn't.  There's your thought experiment.  You
> > haven't observed anything about GAE's scalability by testing the
> > performance of a PC.  (Which I thought was real, not imaginary.)
>
> >                     Ross Ridge- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to