Jeff, Thanks for the suggestion, and probably that's true. I've chosen this test from Mos's e-mail, because I got a feeling that he saw odd behaviors even with one request per minute. Hopefully I can do another test based on your suggestion soon.
Please note that you can also provide your test result on our issue tracker and help us reproduce the issue :) Thanks, On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Jeff Schnitzer <j...@infohazard.org> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
