Yes, the tests I conducted were on the production server. I'd even be content if the resized images used the same default (quality=85) as the Images service. A switch to a more reasonable default would instantly cut all dynamically served images to nearly 1/2 the size... that must be significant bandwidth even for Google. It's either an oversight on Google's part OR they deliberately chose not to utilize the extra CPU bandwidth required for additional compression (???).
Serving yourself allows additional flexibility (such as in your gist) but you don't get the cost benefits of the dynamic image service (no CPU charges) On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:09:37 PM UTC-5, Rafael Sanches wrote: > > Doug, > > Does that behaviour also happens in production? Compare prod vs dev. > > That's another reason why I prefered to run my own image serving, I > control all the parameters and can also add things like watermarking, > vertical cropping and WEBP formatting. > > thanks > rafa > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Doug Anderson > <do...@claystreet.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Rafael & Kaan... since you both utilize dynamic image serving, do either >> of you have an issue concerning the size of dynamically served images? I >> filed the issue below a while ago and it has seemingly been ignored by >> Google. In short my grievance is that dynamically served images are >> effectively sized with JPEG quality = 100 (or very close to it). Thus, the >> dynamic images are typically 3x larger than a comparable image scaled >> statically via the the Images service with quality=65 and 2x larger than >> quality=85. My app saves a large reference image (1440x1080) and I use >> dynamic image serving for a variety of smaller sizes. For image heavy apps >> the difference really adds up... especially for mobile. My issue is below >> if you have an interest in this topic (your thoughts/feedback is much >> appreciated): >> https://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=9979 >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:58:56 PM UTC-5, Rafael Sanches wrote: >> >>> Jim, >>> >>> In 2014 a good engineer can create your own cloud infrastructure with 10 >>> machines like the ones I suggested. >>> >>> Again, I am not saying that I don't like appengine. In fact, I love it >>> and that's why I stick with it. >>> I am saying it's over priced to run a service like Snapchat. I don't >>> think there's any argument there. >>> >>> >>> Kaan, >>> >>> This is my gift to you: https://gist.github.com/mufumbo/8547036 >>> >>> It extends all of the appengine image features: "=s/-c" and includes the >>> most useful one: "=h" >>> >>> Depending on appengine's image serving is a limitation, since "vertical >>> cropping" is extremely useful on many elegant websites. >>> >>> For example, play around with: http://c1.picmix.net/61757192=s682=h300or >>> http://c1.picmix.net/61757192=s300=h600 >>> >>> By the way, another way to reduce server costs is to pay the $400 or >>> $200 a month in support. >>> That way you get access to discounted instance hours. It decreased our >>> bill a bit and give access to a place to get feedback when appengine is >>> having problems or when you need to tweak your scheduling and performance >>> parameters that you don't have access from XML config. >>> >>> About three months ago I spent a whole month optimizing my servers to >>> reduce the costs from $10k to $5k. Even now, I feel it's too overpriced for >>> the performance it's delivering. >>> >>> thanks >>> rafa >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Kaan Soral <kaan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I think he gets it much more than you give him credit for >>>> >>>> Hetzner example, as I interpret it, and think about it myself, is about >>>> the price of computing/ram/bandwith, although it's not comparable 1:1, >>>> it's >>>> important to know how cheap computing and hosting has become over the >>>> years, especially in this last 5-10 years >>>> >>>> It was really interesting to hear about your story Rafael, it was the >>>> approximate reason why I started this discussion, to learn and speculate >>>> about major services >>>> >>>> The 2000$ to 300$ cdn comparison is interesting, however no other >>>> service that I know of matches the extreme capabilities of google images >>>> service >>>> I use the =s/-c resizing/cropping extensively, that's why I could never >>>> easily replace appengine, or the cdn >>>> >>>> You seem to have lived my worst case scenario, going out of money and >>>> having to ask others for money. >>>> >>>> Anyway if you don't mind it would be great to learn more about your >>>> product/story, but I'm guessing it's better to keep things as private as >>>> possible :) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:16:18 PM UTC+2, Jim wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1970's? What on earth about my post made you think of the 1970's? >>>>> My description of geographically redundant, web based applications? >>>>> Please >>>>> indeed. >>>>> >>>>> The link you provided is for a LAMP hosting service... basically what >>>>> I described in my third scenario about. That's apples-vs-oranges as >>>>> compared to GAE. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest you consult with the Application Architects where you work >>>>> and politely ask them to describe the differences to you. Clearly nobody >>>>> here is getting through to you and I don't have the time or the >>>>> inclination. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:35:13 AM UTC-6, Rafael Sanches wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Guys, >>>>>> >>>>>> Please, we're not in 1970 anymore. There is no argue that appengine >>>>>> is the most expensive hosting on earth and possibly the universe. >>>>>> >>>>>> My company spend $4000 a month with appengine. We could host the same >>>>>> service with $50 in a more powerful environment: >>>>>> http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produktmatrix/rootserver- >>>>>> produktmatrix-ex<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hetzner.de%2Fen%2Fhosting%2Fproduktmatrix%2Frootserver-produktmatrix-ex&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHB4pohCO2ZKGcxoTG5sY0nc6pvDw> >>>>>> >>>>>> With $300 we could make it redundant and more reliable and faster >>>>>> than appengine. >>>>>> A dedicated server is also more reliable, because of appengine >>>>>> infamous "hicupps" due to its scheduling system and instance boot time. >>>>>> In one of my services I rent a rack with 20 spaces and it's filled >>>>>> with only 10 severs. It means I can scale my servers with 10 more. That >>>>>> configuration costs $1000. >>>>>> Please, pay attention for 10 dedicated quad-core with 32GB of ram. >>>>>> How much would you pay in appengine for that type of throughput? I did >>>>>> the >>>>>> calculations: $60k. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please, it's incomparable price wise. There's no argue and let's not >>>>>> go there :) >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks >>>>>> rafa >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jim <jeb6...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've seen many variations of this statement, "Google App Engine is >>>>>>> expensive!", and it always strikes me as a bit off. I supppose it >>>>>>> depends >>>>>>> on your perspective and your requirements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the past three years I've been running a small start-up building >>>>>>> a SaaS analytics application. For the prior 25 years or so I built >>>>>>> enterprise apps for some well-known software houses. The last 12 years >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> was building SaaS-based software products serving top-tier global >>>>>>> financial >>>>>>> institutions. During that time I worked on projects where we built, >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> the ground up, 2 different web-based solutions which wound up serving >>>>>>> tens-of-thousands of end-users and very large volumes of >>>>>>> system-to-system >>>>>>> (B2B type) transaction volumes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we created our infrastructure for these systems we needed >>>>>>> multiple geographically dispersed data centers, high levels of >>>>>>> fault-tolerance within any given data center, n-tier architecture, >>>>>>> secure >>>>>>> systems, scalable databases and front-end servers, system, security and >>>>>>> network monitoring and administration, etc. When you spec that all out >>>>>>> from scratch, you will have a hard time doing it for less than several >>>>>>> hundred thousand dollars capex with big ongoing opex expense. Any >>>>>>> growth >>>>>>> beyond your initial headroom will require additional capex expenditure >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> incremental ongoing opex. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Depending on the profile of your application and the system load, at >>>>>>> some point you will pass the threshold of it being cheaper to build and >>>>>>> maintain your own equivalent infrastructure, but that threshold is >>>>>>> very, >>>>>>> very high. So it makes me think people who say GAE is 'expensive' are >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> making a comparison such as this. Maybe they don't really need >>>>>>> everything >>>>>>> that GAE offers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or perhaps they are comparing GAE to other cloud offerings such as >>>>>>> AWS? Amazon's pricing doesn't seem to be radically different than >>>>>>> Google's >>>>>>> to me, for similar services. And given that Amazon's PaaS solution is >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> yet as complete at GAE, I think that any complete appliation built on >>>>>>> AWS >>>>>>> is going to require some level of system-engineering. System engineers >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> not cheap. One of the things we like about GAE is that, at this point >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> our corporate evolution, we can focus entirely on our Customers and our >>>>>>> Software and not spend money or time configuring hardware, OS and other >>>>>>> "low level" stuff that we (as application software guys) don't want to >>>>>>> mess >>>>>>> with. There are very real hard and soft monetary benefits to this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or maybe when people say "expensive" they mean as compared to other >>>>>>> "cloud" offerings that are more along the lines of rented physical or >>>>>>> virtual machines. Yes, some of these can be cheap compared to GAE. >>>>>>> But >>>>>>> these are really apples-to-oranges comparisons when you consider all >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> things you need to provision a global, "utility-grade" (aspirationally, >>>>>>> anyway) SaaS offering. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I guess this post is a long-winded way of me saying "GAE >>>>>>> Expensive? Really? What exactly do you mean by that? Compared to >>>>>>> what?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 4:19:54 AM UTC-6, coto wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We all should be surprised, because Google App Engine is very >>>>>>>> expensive!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 19, 2014 5:23:13 AM UTC-3, alex wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why were you surprised? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Google App Engine" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Google App Engine" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Google App Engine" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> google-a...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
