Yes, it's the complete cold start I mean. Rarely nowadays the cold start time is as much as 10 seconds for me, but occasionally it's several seconds too long. Maybe it doesn't happen so frequently as to be a real problem, but it's still frustrating when suddenly the index page loads like some overbloated dot com site from the late 90s.
On Feb 21, 11:03 am, Tim Hoffman <zutes...@gmail.com> wrote: > HI > > If you don't need to start the django stack to serve a page from cache > then you should be able to deliver a page from a warm instance in > 20-40ms > and if you need to start an instance and only import memcache and > retrieve the cached page you are looking at about 200ms. > > I am doing this on a number of sites (don't use django but use bfg, > but a complete cold start with nothing in cache > is typically around 8-10 seconds. And even the main page is made up > of many cachable bits) so its really rare > we ever have to deal with a full stack startup with nothing in cache. > > T > > On Feb 21, 10:54 am, Anders <i...@blabline.com> wrote: > > > I doubt that replacing calls to Django with calls to memcache would > > improve the cold start time significantly, although I could be wrong. > > What I guess happens in a cold start is that the application code has > > to be loaded through the network into a server and then instantiated > > before serving a webpage. Using the memcache would then not improve > > the initial loading of applications. Only if Django is taking a long > > time to load during a cold start would the use of memcache make much > > difference. > > > On Feb 21, 3:37 am, Eli Jones <eli.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I have a testapp set up that I use to see if any goofy ideas I come up > > > with > > > have any merit. > > > > So you could try to create a simplified version of your page that used the > > > same imports and django templates as the live one. Then create two > > > different test pages.. one where you experiment with caching different > > > things.. and then try to compare the cold start times. > > > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Anders <i...@blabline.com> wrote: > > > > Strange, I don't see the preview release notice on > > > > appengine.google.com any longer. So I assumed that GAE was no longer > > > > in preview release version. And on the SDK download page it now says: > > > > "Please note: The App Engine SDK is under active development, please > > > > keep this in mind as you explore its capabilities." > > > > > I guess I could cache the html generated by Django, at least for the > > > > index page, if that library is more heavy to load than the Memcache > > > > API. I don't know exactly how Python works, but shouldn't it be > > > > possible for GAE to always have the standard frameworks always loaded > > > > into memory for all applications to share? > > > > > On Feb 21, 3:17 am, Eli Jones <eli.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > First, when I log into appengine.google.com, it still says "this is a > > > > > preview release" with the "preview release" part being in bright red > > > > > letters... so.. take that to mean what you want. > > > > > > Second, you haven't mentioned what exactly the code for your index > > > > > page > > > > > does? What is it loading? How much caching are you doing? > > > > > > Caching isn't just for entities from the datastore.. you can and > > > > > should > > > > also > > > > > cache html or page templates or whatever else you can.. Also, you > > > > shouldn't > > > > > dump a bunch of imports at the top of your code.. only import specific > > > > > modules as needed within the code. > > > > > > Though, it's hard to make suggestions without knowing exactly how your > > > > code > > > > > works. (You may be doing all of the above things.. or feel like you > > > > > are > > > > > doing them.) > > > > > > A lot of the annoying restrictions that people complain about, to me, > > > > > are > > > > > inherent limitations to having a highly scalable infrastructure.. the > > > > > restrictions are there to force you to learn to code (from the > > > > > beginning) > > > > > for the App Engine environment. > > > > > > Granted, your issue may just be with intermittent but slow cold start > > > > > times.. is the cold start reasonable in general for you.. > > > > > but occasionally hits that frustrating point? (Again, hard to know > > > > anything > > > > > without knowing how your code is structured.) > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Anders <i...@blabline.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm using Python. And only Python's standard library that's in GAE. > > > > > > My > > > > > > guess is that the cold start problem is similar in the Java version. > > > > > > > The cold start time has improved but now and then loading the index > > > > > > page takes frustratingly long time. That's poor quality for both end > > > > > > users and developers. > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 7:21 pm, Brandon Thomson <gra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Are you using python or java? what is your framework? > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 1:26 am, Anders <i...@blabline.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This has been discussed before but the problem still remains. It > > > > seems > > > > > > > > that GAE is no longer in a preview release version (as far as I > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > see). Having a cold start initiation time of 10 seconds is a > > > > > > > > major > > > > > > > > bottleneck. > > > > > > > > > Imagine if it took 10 seconds to load for example the Google > > > > > > > > Search > > > > > > > > index page in your browser. It doesn't sound like a very long > > > > > > > > time, > > > > > > > > but today that kind of load time for an index page is very poor > > > > > > > > performance. > > > > > > > > > I understand that GAE cannot at the moment hold all applications > > > > hot/ > > > > > > > > warm, because that would require a lot more resources I assume. > > > > > > > > But > > > > I > > > > > > > > think the cold start time needs to be brought down to a maximum > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > around 2 seconds. > > > > > > > > > It actually doesn't matter in many cases if an application is > > > > > > > > used > > > > by > > > > > > > > millions of users every day or only seldom by a few people. The > > > > load > > > > > > > > time for webpages is usually extremely important regardless the > > > > amount > > > > > > > > of traffic to a website. Each user's experience counts. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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<google-appengine%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > <google-appengine%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-appengine%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > . > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > > > > -- > > > > 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-appeng...@googlegroups.com. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-appengine%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. -- 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-appeng...@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.
