I believe they are using a very substantial network CDN for serving static content. I think they only charge bandwidth for items served from their CDN. You can always choose to use something else in addition.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Doug Anderson <d...@claystreet.com> wrote: > I think GAE is trying to remain competitive with Amazon Web Services > etc... and not with CDNs. App Engine and Google Cloud Storage *is* > competitive with Amazon Cloud Services EXCEPT those services offer tiered > pricing (lower prices) for high volume clients... to my knowledge App > Engine doesn't offer that (at least not publicly advertised). App Engine > isn't much of a CDN as far as I can tell (I don't think that's a prime > objective). It would be hard to argue against augmenting with an actual > CDN where appropriate. > > Certainly technologies like Docker and OpenStack go a long way toward > helping a lone wolf build a maintainable stack but I think you'll find that > if you run that stack on Amazon's cloud (for instance) that GAE pricing > *is* competitive. So I would contend that your pricing argument is more of > a generic Anyone's Cloud vs Custom Hardware argument. I can certainly save > a ton of money by storing data on local hard drives vs the cloud but then I > have to worry about redundancy, drive and fan failures, rebuilds, backups > etc. If you want multi-site redundancy and/or need rapid scaling/growth > costs go up and the cloud starts to look intriguing again. Each (cloud and > custom hardware) still has its place imo... > > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:58:42 PM UTC-5, Rafael Sanches wrote: > >> Hi Doug, >> >> Just correcting your phrase a little bit: >> "that must be significant bandwidth even for *YOU*" >> >> We've cut thousands of dollars out of our total bill by serving the >> images ourselves, through a real cdn. >> >> Appengine output bandwidth is much more expensive than almost any other >> cdn out there. >> >> Again, keeping this thread on topic, my advices only make sense if you >> have your server bills are in the thousands and are struggling with server >> costs. >> If you're an early stage startup with < $100 bill or an overfunded >> startup or a big corporation, who cares? :) >> >> thanks >> rafa >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Doug Anderson <do...@claystreet.com>wrote: >> >>> 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>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=h300 or 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-pr >>>>>>>>> oduktmatrix-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. >>>>> 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-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. > -- Jacob Taylor CTO, Kahuna (650) 302-1864 www.useKahuna.com <http://www.usekahuna.com/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/thejacobtaylor<http://www.linkedin.com/in/adammarchick> You -- 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.
