That should be the case, yes. If it's not, please let us know. The CPU ms can be greater than 1000ms in aggregate since it includes parallelized calls to the datastore.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Robert Kluin <robert.kl...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Ikai, > I think we all appreciate your response and clarification of this > issue. Could you also clarify one more point for us, the "100ms" > applies about the handler's actual response time and not the cpu_ms, > is that correct? In other words it is the first "ms" number in my > logs. > > The vast majority of my requests complete well under 800ms -- even > some doing fairly "intensive" processing -- but the cpu_ms jumps all > over the map (largely) depending on the cpu_api_ms. > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > Robert > > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 17:47, Ikai Lan (Google) > <ikai.l+gro...@google.com <ikai.l%2bgro...@google.com>> wrote: > > Apologize, I wasn't clear. The 1000ms limit is only for user facing > > requests. This does not apply to task queues or cron jobs. > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:44 PM, bFlood <bflood...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> does this count for the Task Queue as well? if so, how are we suppose > >> to run tasks that span a couple of seconds? are you saying that if one > >> task goes over 1000ms, you're not going to get any new instances? does > >> this ban on new instances last for a certain time period? > >> > >> urlfetch - does one bad network hop (over 1000ms, for whatever reason) > >> cause you not to scale as well (i'm guessing yes)? > >> > >> On Sep 15, 5:38 pm, "Ikai Lan (Google)" > >> <ikai.l+gro...@google.com<ikai.l%2bgro...@google.com> > > > >> wrote: > >> > If it scaled linearly like that, we probably wouldn't have problems > with > >> > long running requests. Unfortunately, long running requests are bad > for > >> > the > >> > ecosystem because they impose a non-linear cost. > >> > > >> > The number is officially 1000ms. We have been saying 800ms because we > >> > allow > >> > for some variance. If you tuned your requests to be 990ms and had a > >> > period > >> > of 10ms of latency, you'd be dead in the water. 800ms is a safe enough > >> > number that even if you experienced an additional spike of 100ms-150ms > >> > for > >> > whatever reason (datastore slowness, unusual usage patterns in your > >> > application causing Memcache misses, network latency via URLFetch), > you > >> > can > >> > tolerate it and be fairly confident you will be autoscaled. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Flips <philip.mates...@driggle.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > @Harshal > >> > > Actually slower requests mostly consume more cpu time and are much > >> > > more expensive by default.. > >> > > >> > > On Sep 15, 8:28 pm, Harshal <p.hars...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > I am OK with Google introducing tiered pricing for handle this > >> > > > issue. > >> > > Don't > >> > > > take these numbers at their face values, but you would get the > point > >> > > > I am > >> > > > trying to make here. > >> > > >> > > > Avg. Requests CPU Charges > >> > > >> > > > < 700ms $0.02/hr > >> > > > < 1500ms $0.04/hr > >> > > > < 2000ms $0.06/hr > >> > > >> > > > For all the requests Google provision new servers but if you > >> > > > requests > >> > > take > >> > > > longer you pay higher. Not sure if it really makes sense, but the > >> > > > idea of > >> > > > totally not allowing any scaling up is not good enough motivation > to > >> > > write > >> > > > ever more complex apps. > >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Jeff Schwartz > >> > > > <jefftschwa...@gmail.com > >> > > >wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > +1 and a whole lot more :( > >> > > >> > > > > While it is all our goals to produce efficient applications that > >> > > > > can be > >> > > > > scaled out, the platform itself has to be usable &, might I add, > >> > > enforce > >> > > > > ceilings that don't choke the life out of even the simplest of > >> > > processes. In > >> > > > > that regard I'd be willing to give up a little bit of > scalability > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > somewhat more relaxed quotas. > >> > > >> > > > > But the real issue I believe is that of imposing unrealistic > >> > > > > quotas. It > >> > > is > >> > > > > one thing to show an example of an efficient application built > by > >> > > Google and > >> > > > > another to show how that relates to real world applications that > >> > > > > though > >> > > they > >> > > > > employ all the same best practices still cannot function within > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > allowable quotas. > >> > > >> > > > > Resiliency is also a major issue on App Engine, if 99% of our > code > >> > > > > is > >> > > > > protect the app from what can go wrong and that eats up our > quota, > >> > > > > what > >> > > is > >> > > > > left for doing real work? > >> > > >> > > > > It is my desire and I suppose that of many if not even most of > the > >> > > other > >> > > > > developers that Google rethink their approach to providing > >> > > > > scalability > >> > > & > >> > > > > resiliency to the masses on App Engine. > >> > > >> > > > > Jeff > >> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Gordon <hall...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> bothering, indeed.. > >> > > >> > > > >> On Sep 15, 6:11 pm, Robert Kluin <robert.kl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > I am starting to get concerned. A few months ago this number > >> > > > >> > was > >> > > > >> > 1000ms, right? Then about a month or two ago it became > 850ms; > >> > > > >> > actually I have even saw the 850 number posted within the > last > >> > > > >> > week. > >> > > > >> > Now it is 700ms? > >> > > >> > > > >> > From my experience, getting or putting even a single entity > can > >> > > > >> > use > >> > > a > >> > > > >> > substantial portion of 700ms (20% to 40%). If you operate on > >> > > multiple > >> > > > >> > entities you'll easily use 1/2 of 700ms. Just the act of > >> > > > >> > _running_ > >> > > a > >> > > > >> > query takes around 250ms -- when the datastore is actually > >> > > functioning > >> > > > >> > correctly. > >> > > >> > > > >> > This trend is _really_ not good. > >> > > >> > > > >> > Robert > >> > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:18, bFlood <bflood...@gmail.com> > >> > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > not for nothing, but isn't "we may not schedule additional > >> > > > >> > > servers > >> > > for > >> > > > >> > > your app" throttling? > >> > > >> > > > >> > > when did 700ms become a magic number? > >> > > >> > > > >> > > On Sep 15, 9:33 am, "Nick Johnson (Google)" < > >> > > nick.john...@google.com> > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Hi, > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> We don't throttle apps. If your average latency is over > 700 > >> > > > >> milliseconds for > >> > > > >> > >> user-facing requests, we may not schedule additional > servers > >> > > > >> > >> for > >> > > your > >> > > > >> app, > >> > > > >> > >> however. > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> What leads you to conclude that your app is being > throttled? > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> -Nick Johnson > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Coding Social < > >> > > > >> codingsoc...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > I have had appid mapthislink for many months now. > >> > > > >> > >> > Recently my > >> > > > >> > >> > extensions that use this web service to unwind urls have > >> > > > >> > >> > been > >> > > > >> featured > >> > > > >> > >> > by Google Chrome and Apple Safari so usage is up > >> > > > >> > >> > substantially. > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > Can someone turn off the throttle? Causing latency and > >> > > > >> > >> > 13% > >> > > error > >> > > > >> > >> > rate. > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > Thank you. > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > -- > >> > > > >> > >> > 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> > <google-appengine%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > > >> > >> > e...@googlegroups.com><google-appengine%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > e...@googlegroups.com><google-appengine%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > > >> e...@googlegroups.com> > >> > > > >> > >> > . > >> > > > >> > >> > For more options, visit this group at > >> > > > >> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> -- > >> > > > >> > >> Nick Johnson, Developer Programs Engineer, App Engine > Google > >> > > Ireland > >> > > > >> Ltd. :: > >> > > > >> > >> Registered in Dublin, Ireland, Registration Number: 368047 > >> > > > >> > >> Google Ireland Ltd. :: Registered in Dublin, Ireland, > >> > > Registration > >> > > > >> Number: > >> > > > >> > >> 368047 > >> > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > > >> > > 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> > <google-appengine%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > > >> e...@googlegroups.com><google-appengine%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > e...@googlegroups.com> > >> > > > >> . > >> > > > >> > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > >> > > > >> 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> > <google-appengine%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > > >> e...@googlegroups.com><google-appengine%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > e...@googlegroups.com> > >> > > > >> . > >> > > > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > >> > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > Jeff > >> > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > 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%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > > > e...@googlegroups.com><google-appengine%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > e...@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> > <google-appengine%2Bunsubscrib > >> > > e...@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<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<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.
