Looks good to me. I went ahead and added a comment. Thanks!
On Mar 5, 12:21 am, Andy Freeman <ana...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Would a generalization
> ofhttp://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=915
> be useful?
>
> On Mar 4, 5:17 am, Brandon Thomson <gra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Due to the way App Engine is designed it is possible for an
> > application to work fine when datastore/memcache performance is good
> > but then fail miserably when datastore/memcache performance is bad
> > (ie, the last 2 days).
>
> > In my case I was mostly able to design workarounds for the bad
> > performance so that my app still returns something from all requests
> > (albeit in a degraded mode), but I wasn't aware which handlers were
> > going to fail with timeout and 502 errors and whatnot until the bad
> > performance happened.
>
> > If we had a way to simulate worst case datastore/memcache performance
> > for our apps we could design them to fail gracefully ahead of time and
> > avert some of the pain of events like yesterday. If google would
> > clearly define "maximum acceptable latencies" for all the relevant
> > parameters (you don't have to call it a service level agreement, but
> > it would be nice) and then allow us to test our applications at those
> > latencies we could write more robust apps and still return something
> > useful for our visitors in the event of unexpected performance
> > degradation.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
