This is not a very good test. Better would be: Run 'ab -c 1' against it and see if you get any cold starts. Change 1 to a larger number, up to what concurrency we should expect for a multithreaded instance.
Jeff On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Takashi Matsuo <tmat...@google.com> wrote: > > Hi Mos and everyone, > > I'm trying to reproduce the issue about min idle instance which some of > you guys reported here in this thread, saying "Setting min idle instances > doesn't work for me". > > My initial test is just with a simple helloworld Java application > multithread enabled, setting 1 min idle instance, and setting 1 min cron > job. I ran this test for about 2 and half days. I think it just worked as > expected. The resident instance had been alive and handled 3625 requests > during the test. > > What I'm planning to do next is another experiment with an application > with Spring MVC. I'll update with the result hopefully next week. > > At the same time, I'd like one of you to file an issue on our issue > tracker for this particular topic, 'Setting min idle instances doesn't > work', hopefully with expected behavior, actual results, a characteristic > of the application like average time for loading requests as well as normal > requests, etc. I've done a quick search on our issue tracker, and I don't > think there's any issue yet. If there's already an issue about it, please > let me know. > > Thanks, > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Carl Schroeder < > schroeder.car...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yep. Googlites, let us know what else you need to run this down. >> >> >> On Monday, August 27, 2012 10:05:41 AM UTC-7, Mos wrote: >> >>> In >>> http://code.google.com/p/**googleappengine/issues/detail?**id=8004#c8<http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=8004#c8> >>> I described in detail a current example of the nonconforming >>> instance-handling of GAE. >>> Please check the comment, the screenshot and the log-file I filed there. >>> >>> Dear GAE-Team, what else do you need to fix this? In this thread and in >>> several issues you should have more than enough proof and examples..... >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mos >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Mos <mos...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I saw the same behavior (as discussed before in the thread). Many >>>> other people reported this again and again on this mailing-list. >>>> Google has to acknowledge that the current implementation is buggy or >>>> the implementation works but doesn't make any sense in practice. >>>> >>>> Bye the way - The problem is not restricted to resident instances. From >>>> time to time the same happens for dynamic instances: >>>> >>>> One or more dynamic instances are running and are almost idle >>>> (sometimes really idle==no request or just one request is served). >>>> Request comes and starts a new dynamic instance, it goes through 30-40 >>>> seconds of warmup, then request is served. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Carl D'Halluin <ca...@mobicage.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Carl, >>>>> >>>>> I see exactly the same behaviour for my Java appengine app. >>>>> Resident instance does nothing; instead idle instance is started, >>>>> going through several seconds of warmup, then request is served. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Carl Schroeder <schroede...@gmail.com >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 2012-08-27 08:05 is the point in the logs. 1 Resident instance. No >>>>>> Dynamic instances. >>>>>> The request was sent to a cold starting Dynamic instance. Resident >>>>>> instance did nothing. >>>>>> Request took 18 seconds to serve. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 2:16:25 AM UTC-7, Johan Euphrosine >>>>>> (Google) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Carl Schroeder >>>>>>> <schroede...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > Let me see if I understand this correctly: there is currently no >>>>>>> way on app >>>>>>> > engine to ensure that there is an instance ready to process >>>>>>> incoming >>>>>>> > requests for an app that has been idle for some period of time. >>>>>>> Min idle >>>>>>> > instances (labeled as Resident) sit there and do almost nothing >>>>>>> while user >>>>>>> > facing requests are instead sent to cold instance starts. If true, >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> > dovetails with what I have seen in the behavior of my app. For >>>>>>> python >>>>>>> > runtimes with sub-second spinup times, this is no big deal. For >>>>>>> java >>>>>>> > runtimes with spinup times in double digit seconds it is a >>>>>>> deal-breaker of a >>>>>>> > "feature". >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The problem seems to be that the scheduler thinks sending a >>>>>>> request to a >>>>>>> > non-existent dynamic instance is a better idea than using the >>>>>>> Resident >>>>>>> > instance for it's intended purpose: to serve requests when dynamic >>>>>>> instances >>>>>>> > are unable to. This is probably a corner case born of low traffic >>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>> > that allow user request serving dynamic instances to despawn. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Carl, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not what we observed, as I corrected in the previous email: >>>>>>> """ >>>>>>> Resident instances are used for processing incoming request if there >>>>>>> is no dynamic instance, but it is possible that the scheduler warm >>>>>>> up >>>>>>> new dynamic instance to maintain the Min Idle Instance invariant. >>>>>>> """ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you observe a different behavior please comment with your >>>>>>> application id and the timestamp of occurence and we can try to >>>>>>> figure >>>>>>> out what happened. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > For low traffic apps, "Resident" instances serve almost no >>>>>>> purpose. Better >>>>>>> > to do away with them via the slider bars and just set up a script >>>>>>> to tickle >>>>>>> > the app just often enough to keep one "Dynamic" instance resident. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > So, two features to fix this: >>>>>>> > First, a slider bar labeled "Minimum Dynamic instances" ;) >>>>>>> > Second, a button to enable sending warm-up requests and having >>>>>>> them return >>>>>>> > before considering an instance for user facing requests. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups >>>>>>> > "Google App Engine" group. >>>>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/**ms**g/google-appengine/-/**G4DPOlW2J >>>>>>> **h8J<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/G4DPOlW2Jh8J>. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.** >>>>>>> com. >>>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>>> > google-appengi...@**googlegroups**.com. >>>>>>> > For more options, visit this group at >>>>>>> > http://groups.google.com/**group**/google-appengine?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en>. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Johan Euphrosine (proppy) >>>>>>> Developer Programs Engineer >>>>>>> Google Developer Relations >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Google App Engine" group. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>>>> **msg/google-appengine/-/**ApT6E62dU9QJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/ApT6E62dU9QJ> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.**com. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengi...@** >>>>>> googlegroups.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>>>> group/google-appengine?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carl D'Halluin >>>>> >>>>> Next-generation communication at http://www.rogerthat.net >>>>> >>>>> Email: ca...@mobicage.com >>>>> >>>>> Phone: +32 9 324 25 64 >>>>> Fax: +32 9 324 25 65 >>>>> Skype: carldhalluin >>>>> Twitter: @carl_dhalluin >>>>> LinkedIn: >>>>> http://www.linkedin.**com/pub/carl-d-halluin/0/982/**457<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/carl-d-halluin/0/982/457> >>>>> >>>>> NV MOBICAGE >>>>> Antwerpsesteenweg 19 >>>>> 9080 Lochristi >>>>> Belgium >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Google App Engine" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/kb9OyMgMH5wJ. >> >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Takashi Matsuo | Developers Advocate | tmat...@google.com > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
