Hi TJ, That really is an amazing post. I'm impressed, you have certainly covered all the technical bases of implementing a proxy.
My biggest concern is that Googles behaviour is unpredictable and I not entirely sure how well they will respond to something like this being implemented. 1. I have experienced being blocked by the app engine (try again in an hour etc.), so I could reasonably assume that it would be likely that a lot of traffic coming from one source may be blocked. 2. A large portion of the revenue comes from Google adsense/adwords. Google uses a variety of mechanisms to check for invalid clicks, so all the clicks coming from one source would no doubt raise some red flags. 3. The traffic statistics would be almost useless (there is probably a workaround... but a lot of work). 4. Google has deliberately and intentionally blocked traffic originating from Sudan, Syria, Cuba, Iran and North Korea(not really sure if they have internet there). From the legal discourse I have read it would appear google is obligated to block any proxies where traffic is coming from these countries. I don't really understand this one as the USA changed their political administration in January 2009 and the block went in two weeks later. There has to be some politics behind this which I am unaware of. Google has decided to say nothing on this subject so I can only assume the worst. Google has also said nothing about the China block, which again means to expect the worst. I am also far from convinced that Google has figured out China (like a lot of western companies). From the look of their developer blog http://www.developer.googlechinablog.com/, only 16 people read this as the RSS feed. I can't really expect any Chinese to have faith in Google with not only that their country has blocked, but more importantly that google itself has actively blocked other countries. Google will do what Google wants to do and fail to communicate. I can't see this strategy doing anything other than annoying the Chinese further. And back to China I go next week (luckily on unrelated business). And TJ, I like your post, if I can get some (positive) answers I will be putting in a proxy just as you have outlined. Keep up the great work. On Apr 9, 10:35 am, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote: > Hi Wally, > > Sorry to hear about the block. > > > The internet is indeed a funny place. > > I did respond with a question on how to set this up but have received > > no answer? > > > Any ideas anyone? > > Setting up a proxy server is a non-trivial task (I'm not saying it's > hard, just non-trivial) so you're not likely to get a lot of dedicated > help for it here. May be worth seeking out other newsgroups for the > technical details (if you haven't already!). > > Most commercial-grade web software such as Apache[1] or nginx[2] can > be set up to proxy, and there are several dedicated proxy packages as > well (such as Squid[3]). I've been hearing very good things about > nginx the last year or so, but have virtually no direct experience > with it (and not that much experience setting up proxies at all, so > take all of this with a grain of salt). > > [1]http://httpd.apache.org/ > [2]http://nginx.net/ > [3]http://www.squid-cache.org/ > > But since you'll need a hosting provider of some sort for the proxy, > and it sounds as though this is going to be your main reason for > having that other hosting service, it may be worth considering > approaching hosting providers who will set up and maintain the proxy > for you, rather than doing it yourself. I searched for "proxy > hosting" and there's a whole industry out there you can tap into. It > depends on whether this is something you want to add to your set of > skills. Naturally, you'll want to be sure that the proxy hosting > company itself isn't blocked in China! Given what they do, I suspect > a fair number of them are, but the censors can't keep on top of all of > them, and you can switch as necessary (the joys of proxying!). > > A downside of the proxy approach is that you'll end up paying anywhere > from twice to six times as much for at least some of your site's > traffic -- the parts that can't be cached. Say you host the proxy at > Acme Hosting Company. Where before your traffic costs on a request > for dynamic content were: > > * Inbound cost at AppEngine (receiving request from end user's > browser) > * Outbound cost at AppEngine (sending reply to end user's browser) > > with a proxy you'll be paying: > > * Inbound cost at Acme (receiving request from end user's browser) > * Outbound cost at Acme (sending request to AppEngine) > * Inbound cost at AppEngine (receiving request from proxy) > * Outbound cost at AppEngine (sending reply to proxy) > * Inbound cost at Acme (receiving reply from AppEngine) > * Outbound cost at Acme (sending reply to end user's browser) > > So you'll need to shop around with that in mind. Again, that's only > the dynamic content; if the proxy can satisfy the request from cache, > it will, and so you wouldn't end up paying AppEngine transfer costs > (or CPU time costs) on that particular request at all. > > Some suggestions related to that: > > * Provide a transparent redirect mechanism or some such for users who > can go direct, so avoid putting unnecessary load and throughput on the > proxy. > > * Be sure that your site's content is as cacheable as possible (but > this is always a good idea). The more cacheable your site, the faster > it seems to be, because there's a fair bit of caching that goes on out > in the cloud if you let it; caching doesn't only happen at the end > user's browser. > > * Make sure all of the links in the chain are using compression (gzip, > etc.) whenever possible. > > Wow, longer post than I intended. Anyway, FWIW, and good luck, > -- > T.J. Crowder > tj / crowder software / com > Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available > > On Apr 6, 5:35 pm, WallyDD <shaneb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The internet is indeed a funny place. > > I did respond with a question on how to set this up but have received > > no answer? > > > Any ideas anyone? > > > On Apr 6, 3:03 am, Paddy Foran <foran.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'd just like to point out how funny it is that people keep banging on > > > for Google to respond, and in their banging on for Google to respond, > > > they missed Google's actual response. > > > > >> Is there any google staff who is responsible for GAE promotion and > > > >> technology to say something here? > > > > >> How can I access to my Google Apps via my own domain directly, e.g. > > > >> how can access via mail.my_domain.com instead of mail.google.com/a/ > > > >> my_domain.com? > > > > >One way to address this is to run a proxy server elsewhere, which will > > > >allow your site to have it's own unique IP, rather than the shared IPs > > > >of Google. > > > > >-Brett > > > >App Engine Team > > > > Please note the "App Engine Team" signature. That means Brett (at > > > least claims he) is from Google. > > > > Poor Brett was ignored, as people clamoured for Brett to comment. > > > > This is why I love the internet. It amuses me to no end. > > > > On Apr 6, 12:48 am, Andy Freeman <ana...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > No company is willing to be a pawn in the game of politics between > > > > > Google and China. > > > > > That sounds reasonable, but what can Google do to stop the Chinese > > > > govt from blocking? > > > > > (1) Google can't tell the Chinese govt what to do. > > > > > (2) The Chinese govt appears to be technically competent and controls > > > > the relevant connections, both from the outside and from internal > > > > datacenters. > > > > > (3) Google can propose agreements, but China is a soverign entity and > > > > and can do what it pleases wrt internal matters. (Other posters have > > > > suggested that buying dinner for the appropriate official would cause > > > > the blocking to go away. I don't see why the Chinese govt would find > > > > such an agreement binding.) > > > > > Yes, one can argue that Google "needs" the Chinese govt to not block, > > > > but that doesn't imply that Google can do anything to stop the Chinese > > > > govt from blocking. Google's needs do not obligate the Chinese govt. > > > > > On Apr 5, 3:16 pm, WallyDD <shaneb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Google is more or less obligated to solve this issue. > > > > > > No company is willing to be a pawn in the game of politics between > > > > > Google and China. > > > > > Name a single company (that has any international presence) who would > > > > > be willing to use GAE knowing full well that it is blocked in its > > > > > current form? > > > > > This issue has nothing to do with the Chinese government and there is > > > > > no way Google will point the finger at them. > > > > > > Perhaps google can also take on all the other countries that are > > > > > blocking GAE and while they are at it they can point fingers at > > > > > corporate america and their firewalls? > > > > > You have to remember that at the moment this is a "preview release". > > > > > > I don't really understand why you persist with this argument. You have > > > > > raised some valid points which should be looked at and considered in > > > > > the scheme of things but most of the diatribe you present here seems > > > > > aimed at China/Chinese Government. I have always found prejudices > > > > > cloud peoples judgement. > > > > > > To sumarise how this problem will probably be viewed; > > > > > Google created a dns based system (for GAE addressing) which puts > > > > > everything though ghs.google.com. This system works really well and > > > > > from my experience it was very clever and efficient. However it has an > > > > > issue with firewalls that got overlooked. Google has just recently > > > > > been made aware of this problem. > > > > > > On Apr 5, 12:53 pm, Andy Freeman <ana...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Feel free to hair-split the word "obligation". > > > > > > > It's the plain meaning of the word. I apologise for not knowing > > > > > > that > > > > > > you didn't know what it meant when you wrote that Google had an > > > > > > obligation to make GAE available in China. Are there other > > > > > > statements > > > > > > that you made without understanding their meaning? > > > > > > > China availability issue is one of the few issues where folks claim > > > > > > that/act like Google has an obligation even though it's an issue > > > > > > where > > > > > > Google has very little capability to change things. > > > > > > > > That's why I want to hear from a Google representative on their > > > > > > > plan. > > > > > > > I predict that if Google says anything, it will be roughly > > > > > > equivalent > > > > > > to "we're doing what we can". At that point, you'll have to decide > > > > > > if > > > > > > the results, which will vary with the whim of the Chinese govt, are > > > > > > adequate for your purposes. > > > > > > > Of course, if you're better at dealing with the Chinese govt than > > > > > > Google is.... > > > > > > > > Now just accept that fact and act accordingly. > > > > > > > And the basis for this order is... > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 6:11 pm, Andy <selforgani...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm someone who understands that obligations come from laws and > > > > > > > > contracts. Feel free to point to the relevant chapter and > > > > > > > > verse that > > > > > > > > > However, absent a contract and/or a law, Google isn't obligated > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > make GAE applications visible in China. > > > > > > > > Feel free to hair-split the word "obligation". > > > > > > > > Does Google have the legal obligation to solve this problem? No. > > > > > > > Just > > > > > > > like Google doesn't have any legal obligation to improve this > > > > > > > service > > > > > > > or add any new features. Does that mean users should stop posting > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > thread that's about improving GAE? > > > > > > > > Does that mean you're going to start polluting every single > > > > > > > thread in > > > > > > > this forum by posting your 'Google has no legal obligation to do > > > > > > > this" > > > > > > > drivel? > > > > > > > > > Good for you. And Google may, or may not, offer such an > > > > > > > > option. Note > > > > > > > > "may not" - they're under no obligation to do so. (I don't > > > > > > > > presume to > > > > > > > > know the risks and costs of offering such an option. After > > > > > > > > all, China > > > > > > > > can block at the edge of the > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
