Re: [appengine-java] Re: Loading requests timeout with DeadlineExceededException while reading classes
I have started getting deadlock exceptions thrown from code that uses Guavas ConcurrentHashMap http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5384 Aside from this problem, loading requests frequently seem to block on something (resource access?). Normally they complete in 5-8 seconds but sometimes (~25%) they take 20 - 60 seconds or just time-out (DEEx). I was not getting either of these problems with thread-safe=false but latency was higher so I don't want to switch back to that mode. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google App Engine for Java group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine-java/-/GVNEEEAazngJ. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Object with id com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Key:AgentP(9) is managed by a different Object Manager
Hi,
I have this Method(server side) Which I call Asynchronously (RPC) I'm Using
GWT and GAE:
@Override
public List? getClientData(MyPersistance filterClass) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
pm = getPersistenceManagerFactory().getPersistenceManager();
Query clientQ = pm.newQuery(filterClass.getClass());
List? clientList = new ArrayList();
List? clientPCopy;
try {
clientList = (List?) clientQ.execute();
clientPCopy = (List?) pm.detachCopyAll(clientList);
} finally {
clientQ.closeAll();
}
return clientPCopy;
}
And I have in my Interface Two Widgets That are calling this method and both
of them call this method to get data from Database, So here is the problem,
When I call this method separately for each widget commenting from another
one It works ok, but when they both call this method I got this Error :
Service method 'public abstract java.util.List
am.officemanager.directory.client.services.AdminService.getClientData(am.officemanager.directory.shared.MyPersistance)'
threw an unexpected exception: javax.jdo.JDOUserException: Object with id
com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Key:AgentP(9) is managed by a different
Object Manager
Please tell Me why It happence so.
Regards,
Manvel Saroyan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine for Java group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine-java/-/73JWfFF4M1MJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: Object with id com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Key:AgentP(9) is managed by a different Object Manager
and pm variable is defined where? one per thread? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google App Engine for Java group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
Re: [appengine-java] Re: Object with id com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Key:AgentP(9) is managed by a different Object Manager
O thanks that was the problem I was using the same pm...
It was declarec as field, I changed the method:
@Override
public List? getClientData(MyPersistance filterClass) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
PersistenceManager pm =
getPersistenceManagerFactory().getPersistenceManager();
Query clientQ = pm.newQuery(filterClass.getClass());
List? clientList = new ArrayList();
List? clientPCopy;
try {
clientList = (List?) clientQ.execute();
clientPCopy = (List?) pm.detachCopyAll(clientList);
} finally {
clientQ.closeAll();
}
return clientPCopy;
}
And now It's Ok... Thanks...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine for Java group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Changing the gae.parent-pk of an existing persistent class
Hi there,
We already have a persistent class with lots of instances in the datastore.
This class has now an attribute set as gae.parent-pk. We now need to change
the attribute that must be the gae.parent-pk.
Has anyone done this before? Are we to face any issue if we make this
change? We don't make use of transactions where class is involved.
This is the way it is now:
public class MyClass {
@PrimaryKey
@Persistent(valueStrategy = IdGeneratorStrategy.IDENTITY)
@Extension(vendorName=datanucleus, key=gae.encoded-pk, value=true)
private String key;
@Persistent
@Extension(vendorName=datanucleus, key=gae.parent-pk, value=true)
private String accountProfileKey;
@Persistent
private String accountKey;
@Persistent
private String profileTableId;
..
This is the way we need to be:
public class MyClass {
@PrimaryKey
@Persistent(valueStrategy = IdGeneratorStrategy.IDENTITY)
@Extension(vendorName=datanucleus, key=gae.encoded-pk, value=true)
private String key;
@Persistent
private String accountProfileKey;
@Persistent
@Extension(vendorName=datanucleus, key=gae.parent-pk, value=true)
private String accountKey;
@Persistent
private String profileTableId;
..
Many thanks in advanced,
Luis
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine for Java group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine-java/-/hjjrGr6f_bcJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: The *real* cost of the billing changes
Pricing should be as follows: Calculate a price of resources using the demand / availability of those resources in the cloud: - if Google has more of resource X than users demand, the price for that resource would go down and free quota up. - if users demand more of resource X than Google has, the price for that resource would go up and free quota down. Pricing model: GAE users would act as buyers and resources in the cloud as suppliers. - Suppliers (resources producers in the cloud) set the price of the resource above the current market price. - Supplier decreases the price until resource is sold - but a supplier nevers sells under the price of (production cost + Google profit margin). - Google continously buys certain amounts of the resource and declares it to be a shared good - that is the free quota for each App Engine. Users act as buyers and buy using a model of their own choice. - Some would never buy any resource - but want to use free quota. - Some would spend $ in a month / week / day / hour / minute / second on a specific resource. - Some would spend $ in a month / week / day / hour / minute / second on any resource. - Some would spend $ in a month / week / day / hour / minute / second on all resources. - Some would buy whenever the price is under $ - Some would buy certain amounts in a given time period. - Some would always buy the resource. In this way the GAE users can buy according to their need (production cost, if any + profit margin, if any). Is this not the logical solution for the pricing problem? Mix this with a Market for App Engine Apps and BOOM :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google App Engine for Java group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
Re: [appengine-java] Re: The *real* cost of the billing changes
Amazon does something like this for its excess capacity: http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/spot-instances/ ...but it's just for excess capacity. I wouldn't want this kind of behavior for my core usage because it would make my bill highly unpredictable. And it does not incentivize Google to add more resources to the cluster. Jeff On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:39 AM, gk goran.kar...@googlemail.com wrote: Pricing should be as follows: Calculate a price of resources using the demand / availability of those resources in the cloud: - if Google has more of resource X than users demand, the price for that resource would go down and free quota up. - if users demand more of resource X than Google has, the price for that resource would go up and free quota down. Pricing model: GAE users would act as buyers and resources in the cloud as suppliers. - Suppliers (resources producers in the cloud) set the price of the resource above the current market price. - Supplier decreases the price until resource is sold - but a supplier nevers sells under the price of (production cost + Google profit margin). - Google continously buys certain amounts of the resource and declares it to be a shared good - that is the free quota for each App Engine. Users act as buyers and buy using a model of their own choice. - Some would never buy any resource - but want to use free quota. - Some would spend $ in a month / week / day / hour / minute / second on a specific resource. - Some would spend $ in a month / week / day / hour / minute / second on any resource. - Some would spend $ in a month / week / day / hour / minute / second on all resources. - Some would buy whenever the price is under $ - Some would buy certain amounts in a given time period. - Some would always buy the resource. In this way the GAE users can buy according to their need (production cost, if any + profit margin, if any). Is this not the logical solution for the pricing problem? Mix this with a Market for App Engine Apps and BOOM :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google App Engine for Java group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google App Engine for Java group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Help: Memcache - not hitting at all
Hi,
I have a Memcache wrapper class with a set of public static methods for
getting and setting application-specific key:value pairs. They use a set of
private static methods defined here:
private static boolean has(String key) {
return MemcacheServiceFactory.getMemcacheService().contains(key)
get(key).length()0;
}
private static String get(String key) {
try {
return (String)
MemcacheServiceFactory.getMemcacheService().get(key);
} catch (Exception e) { return ;}
}
private static void put(String key, String value, int expiry) {
MemcacheServiceFactory.getMemcacheService().put(key, value,
Expiration.byDeltaSeconds(expiry));
}
private static void delete(String key) {
MemcacheServiceFactory.getMemcacheService().delete(key);
}
The problem is there is almost no hit rate on my cache. What's wrong with
the code here?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine for Java group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine-java/-/KWbuzF6TofYJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[appengine-java] Re: The *real* cost of the billing changes
Users who need a highly predictable bill could pre-allocate X resources for $ (special deal like $9 / month). It tells the supplier: produce this much at a given future date for the now agreed price. Supplier profits from planing stability, buyer profits from price and supply stability. Incentive for Google is profit ;-) If Google allows price inflation on scarce resources users will buy less. If they add resources they can sell more and profit more. Price stability should not be a big problem due to the distributive nature of the cloud. On Sep 10, 8:44 pm, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote: Amazon does something like this for its excess capacity: http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/spot-instances/ ...but it's just for excess capacity. I wouldn't want this kind of behavior for my core usage because it would make my bill highly unpredictable. And it does not incentivize Google to add more resources to the cluster. Jeff On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:39 AM, gk goran.kar...@googlemail.com wrote: Pricing should be as follows: Calculate a price of resources using the demand / availability of those resources in the cloud: - if Google has more of resource X than users demand, the price for that resource would go down and free quota up. - if users demand more of resource X than Google has, the price for that resource would go up and free quota down. Pricing model: GAE users would act as buyers and resources in the cloud as suppliers. - Suppliers (resources producers in the cloud) set the price of the resource above the current market price. - Supplier decreases the price until resource is sold - but a supplier nevers sells under the price of (production cost + Google profit margin). - Google continously buys certain amounts of the resource and declares it to be a shared good - that is the free quota for each App Engine. Users act as buyers and buy using a model of their own choice. - Some would never buy any resource - but want to use free quota. - Some would spend $ in a month / week / day / hour / minute / second on a specific resource. - Some would spend $ in a month / week / day / hour / minute / second on any resource. - Some would spend $ in a month / week / day / hour / minute / second on all resources. - Some would buy whenever the price is under $ - Some would buy certain amounts in a given time period. - Some would always buy the resource. In this way the GAE users can buy according to their need (production cost, if any + profit margin, if any). Is this not the logical solution for the pricing problem? Mix this with a Market for App Engine Apps and BOOM :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google App Engine for Java group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google App Engine for Java group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
[google-appengine] Entity name vs property
Hi guys,
I have this entity:
House {
- country
- state
- address
- owner
- ...
}
Since I will *always* limit queries to be inside specific country
+state combo, would it be more efficient (faster, smaller datastore,
smaller index) if I just shard them into different entities? E.g.:
HouseBaId (for houses in Bali, Indonesia), HouseTxUs (for houses in
Texas, US), etc.
Query-wise, it is shorter, e.g. select * from HouseUsTx instead
select * from House where country = 'us' and state = 'tx.
--
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.
Re: [google-appengine] Entity name vs property
you could also created derivative entity which combined both country and
state and query for it == operator.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Thomas Wiradikusuma
wiradikus...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
I have this entity:
House {
- country
- state
- address
- owner
- ...
}
Since I will *always* limit queries to be inside specific country
+state combo, would it be more efficient (faster, smaller datastore,
smaller index) if I just shard them into different entities? E.g.:
HouseBaId (for houses in Bali, Indonesia), HouseTxUs (for houses in
Texas, US), etc.
Query-wise, it is shorter, e.g. select * from HouseUsTx instead
select * from House where country = 'us' and state = 'tx.
--
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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
I would much rather specify a hard limit for number of active instances so my app scales up to that point and then degrades progressively. At that point the limit is reached, latencies would increase with increasing traffic, but if I was smart I would have set the limit so the higher traffic would not be able to exhaust my budget because instances stop increasing. So if 30 instances worth of users were hammering my 10 hard limited instances, their browser loads would be unpleasant, but the site wouldn't go completely offline. The current reality is that I can only limit idle instances. As active traffic increases, the scheduler can spin up and actually exhaust my budget. So browser latencies would be nicer for a bit, but then suddenly hit a brick wall. After my budget is exhausted, now I've got 30 instances worth of users all hammering 1 single remaining instance. For all intents, my site is offline. In fact, if my budget is exhausted, I think it will go completely offline perhaps running 0 instances but definitely not able to do datastore operations. That's not a red herring. It's legitimately needing a way to limit performance scaling so costs stay within a manageable budget. -- 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/-/K_KO68dzq1UJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Re: The Amazing Story Of Appengine And The Two Orders Of Magnitude
I've just posted the last of what became 4 posts in this series. http://point7.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-amazing-story-of-appengine-and-the-two-orders-of-magnitude/ http://point7.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/appengine-tuning-1/ http://point7.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/appengine-tuning-an-instance-of-success/ http://point7.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/appengine-tuning-schlemiel-youre-fired/ tl;dr is, that my pricing's back down really low, things have worked out. btw I've had great feedback, tips and techniques from this community. Thanks! I think that, regarding longevity of a tech, the culture that builds around a it is just as important as the tech itself. All signs are that AppEngine is going to be a long term viable platform. On 3 September 2011 19:46, Emlyn emlynore...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I don't think I've posted here before, but I've been an appengine user for a while now (closing on 2 years? Is that even possible?). And like many, I had a rude shock with the new pricing (going from $0.50/day to $50/day). However, I dug into what I'm actually being charged for, and I think it's all actually in my control to sort out, and that in itself is sort of fascinating. I wrote a long blog post on this, which people might find interesting. The Amazing Story Of Appengine And The Two Orders Of Magnitude http://point7.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-amazing-story-of-appengine-and-the-two-orders-of-magnitude/ I'd be really grateful for feedback, especially if I've gotten anything wildly wrong. I haven't actually made any of the changes that I've foreshadowed in the post, that's for the next day or two, and I'll write a followup article on how it goes. Thanks in advance for having a look! -- Emlyn http://my.syyn.cc - Synchonise Google+, Facebook, WordPress and Google Buzz posts, comments and all. http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog Find me on Facebook and Buzz -- Emlyn http://my.syyn.cc - Synchonise Google+, Facebook, WordPress and Google Buzz posts, comments and all. http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog Find me on Facebook and Buzz -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Disappearing posts
Ditto, they were definitely there at one point! -- 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/-/8_Q3wHeCJygJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Why I think it's the time to leave GAE.
At least your within the new daily limit of 28hrs for the free instance! -- 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/-/WAxArNusrP0J. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Why I think it's the time to leave GAE.
At least you're within the new limit of 28hrs for a free instance - http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/09/few-adjustments-to-app-engines-upcoming.html -- 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/-/CCtVxvG0As4J. 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.
[google-appengine] Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
I don't mind that there is a max idle instances slider, but I'd love to see a min idle instances (=always on) and a max total instances. This would allow me to avoid crazy billing when the app is under heavy load and to keep free apps to run out of instance hours. I'm happy to read that free instance hours have been increased to 28, but it would be great to be able to assure that the app is serving requests whole day. -- 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/-/525WLu3pNtUJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Re: Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
+1 to MAX_TOTAL_INSTANCES -- 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/-/unbQnrwWTmIJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
+1 On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Daniel Florey daniel.flo...@gmail.comwrote: I don't mind that there is a max idle instances slider, but I'd love to see a min idle instances (=always on) and a max total instances. This would allow me to avoid crazy billing when the app is under heavy load and to keep free apps to run out of instance hours. I'm happy to read that free instance hours have been increased to 28, but it would be great to be able to assure that the app is serving requests whole day. -- 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/-/525WLu3pNtUJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Re: The Amazing Story Of Appengine And The Two Orders Of Magnitude
+1 , very good read! -- 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/-/7qPNiFG2oVIJ. 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.
[google-appengine] About the mail api, how do developers know if a mail is sent successfully or not?
Seems the mail api doesn't care if a mail receiver is reachable. -- 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.
[google-appengine] Re: Disappearing posts
We had someone with a similar problem a week or so ago. The would get posted and then 'go away'. We did not find what was going on. He picked a name that could have triggered an auto-spam filter, changed it and his posts started showing up. It does not look like you are in that situation??? Gary -- 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/-/MXKO0ERDohgJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Google App engine NO LONGER FOR SMALL DEVELOPERS
Thank you all for your valuable comments. I liked the appstats stuff and will use it. Hey Greg/Jeff, I know it sounds like a joke that a person is earning such a small amount and is running a business. But that is the truth for us here. The market is very small and clients are not willing to pay. Moreover, all php developers here are charging the same amount and even I know that is not doing a business. If I need to work for local clients,I need to have this rates, otherwise I will not be able to survive here. I am just trying to make a few clients here. I know how commercial apps are charged and in International market what are all kinds of charges companies put in front of customers. That is a big market there you guys are playing. And if you think that I should focus on international clients then you see that what option I have - sites like freelancer, vworker?? I guess you guys know what rates are their so I do not need to discuss that. Thanks Romesh On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.orgwrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote: I generally share this opinion - seriously, if $9/mo is a problem, you're not running a business. That's two lates (one in NYC). That would be lattes. 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. 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.
[google-appengine] Long running tasks impact on scheduler ?
I'd like to know what is the impact of tasks on the scheduler. Obviously tasks have very high latency (up to 10 minutes, but not using much cpu - mostly I/O). What is their impact on the scheduler if any ? Would be nice to have some sample use cases on how the scheduler is supposed to react. For example if I have 1 task which takes 1 minute, spawn every 1s, vs every 10s, vs 1 min ? Since the tasks use very low cpu, technically an instance could easily run 60 of them concurrently so 1 qps with 1-min tasks could take only one instance. But I doubt the scheduler would spawn only one instance. App Engine team, any insights ? Thanks -- 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/-/a8m5JBENa50J. 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.
[google-appengine] Re: The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
Quote: In addition, there is a 15-minute charge ($0.02) every time an instance starts Sorry to keep banging on about this, but see the latest explanations of how the pricing works... what you report here is what we all heard, but it's not true. A maximum number of max-idle-instances have a 15-minute charge every time they start up (in return for which they'll stay in memory for at least 15 minutes) but any instances beyond that count do NOT have a 15-minute charge for starting up, they are charged only for the time they are actively serving requests (subject, I expect, to some granularity in the billing system, but this should be considerably less than 15 minutes). If you have max-idle set to 1, and a 1 minute massive burst meant that 100 instances were started, but then the traffic died back to nothing, then only 1 of those instances would have the 15 minute charge (and would be effectively guaranteed to stay in memory that long) - the scheduler may even decide, if the machines are not needed for other apps and there's spare capacity, to keep some or many of the 100 instances in memory (there may be another burst), but even if it does so, you're not paying for the other 99 being idle - it's what I termed the free-idle state. Cheers -- Tim -- 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/-/wFY7XNN8yzsJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
Thanks, Tim. I think that's the first clear description I've read of this particular billing phenomena. Google overlords: Add those two paragraphs to your official docs! On Sep 10, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Tim wrote: Quote: In addition, there is a 15-minute charge ($0.02) every time an instance starts Sorry to keep banging on about this, but see the latest explanations of how the pricing works... what you report here is what we all heard, but it's not true. A maximum number of max-idle-instances have a 15-minute charge every time they start up (in return for which they'll stay in memory for at least 15 minutes) but any instances beyond that count do NOT have a 15-minute charge for starting up, they are charged only for the time they are actively serving requests (subject, I expect, to some granularity in the billing system, but this should be considerably less than 15 minutes). If you have max-idle set to 1, and a 1 minute massive burst meant that 100 instances were started, but then the traffic died back to nothing, then only 1 of those instances would have the 15 minute charge (and would be effectively guaranteed to stay in memory that long) - the scheduler may even decide, if the machines are not needed for other apps and there's spare capacity, to keep some or many of the 100 instances in memory (there may be another burst), but even if it does so, you're not paying for the other 99 being idle - it's what I termed the free-idle state. Cheers -- Tim -- 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/-/wFY7XNN8yzsJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
On Saturday, 10 September 2011 14:32:57 UTC+1, Joshua Smith wrote: Thanks, Tim. I think that's the first clear description I've read of this particular billing phenomena. Google overlords: Add those two paragraphs to your official docs! You're welcome, see also my post here of my new understanding of the 15 minute rule (after discussions in others threads and answers from Jon), which was then confirmed as broadly accurate by the Googlers involved https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/zuRXAphGnPk/discussion Cheers -- T -- 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/-/0kwURglI0QgJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
Yeah, I saw that. But there was so much detail that it got a little hard to keep track of. On Sep 10, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Tim wrote: On Saturday, 10 September 2011 14:32:57 UTC+1, Joshua Smith wrote: Thanks, Tim. I think that's the first clear description I've read of this particular billing phenomena. Google overlords: Add those two paragraphs to your official docs! You're welcome, see also my post here of my new understanding of the 15 minute rule (after discussions in others threads and answers from Jon), which was then confirmed as broadly accurate by the Googlers involved https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/zuRXAphGnPk/discussion Cheers -- T -- 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/-/0kwURglI0QgJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Re: problems deploying recently - Please Help
Thanks, Robert. That was great advice. But, alas, it did not give me any hints as to why this is stalling. I tried --noisy as well. It just lists the files as they are uploading. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just stalls at some random file each time. I have also tried: --insecure --no_precompilation to diagnose, but the update still stalls somewhere randomly. Weird. Any other ideas? -- 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.
[google-appengine] Re: Does Google overcharge for backends?
I'm quite sure this has been fixed as of yesterday. -- 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.
[google-appengine] Re: The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
Nicely done, Jeff. Thank you for the succinct explanation. -- 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.
[google-appengine] Re: Long running tasks impact on scheduler ?
My guess is it will depend on whether the scheduler treats task requests the same as requests from outside. If they are treated similarly, then the scheduler would spin up new instances in an attempt to reduce the latency of the tasks... which would be silly. -- 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/-/rK-Int5THXUJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Re: Python Tutorial Guestbook App gives index error upon deployment
I'm trying to post a production issue using the link you provided but the submit button is grayed out. On Sep 10, 1:22 am, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Arpan, Yes this happens sometimes. File a production issue.http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/entry?template=Produc... Robert On Sep 9, 2011 2:33 PM, arpz arpan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I finished the Python getting started tutorial and had a functioning guestbook on my local dev environment (max os x). When I created my AppID (pythontest000) and tried deploying I keep getting an error cannot build indexes in a state of ERROR. Looking at my indexes in the admin console I notice that it is in ERROR state. I have tried the vacuum_index as suggested in the FAQ but that doesn't work either. Has anyone else had the same issue? -Arpan -- 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.
[google-appengine] Re: The Amazing Story Of Appengine And The Two Orders Of Magnitude
Nice blog Emlyn. The reason why your Frontend Instance hours are lower than you expected is because you assumed that you will be billed for the area under the BLUE line in the Instance graph. It's not. You are being billed for the area under the YELLOW line (Active Instance) PLUS your Max Idle Instance setting. So your Active Instances is hovering at around ~0.72, and I assume you have set your application's Max Idle Instance to 1. Therefore ~1.72 * 24 = ~41.28 Instance Hours -- 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/-/dWoTZKzCy7kJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Re: Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
I wished Google made it clearer, but guys, please stop worrying about the Blue Total Instances line when it comes to billing. You are NOT charged for the Blue line, but for the YELLOW Active Instances line plus 1. Your actual Instance-Hour change is Max Idle Instance plus Active Instance (except when you have 0 instances up where you will be charged 0). If you set Max Idle Instance to 1. Your free application should have no problem staying under the 28 Instance-Hour quota even if the scheduler decides to spawn 2-4 instances for you all day, as long as your Active Instances average is below 0.1666 Again, IGNORE THE BLUE LINE. Worry about keeping the YELLOW line below 0.1666 -- 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/-/FGV2F-eHOXMJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Python Tutorial Guestbook App gives index error upon deployment
Make sure you supply a description subject. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:30, arpz arpan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm trying to post a production issue using the link you provided but the submit button is grayed out. On Sep 10, 1:22 am, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Arpan, Yes this happens sometimes. File a production issue.http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/entry?template=Produc... Robert On Sep 9, 2011 2:33 PM, arpz arpan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I finished the Python getting started tutorial and had a functioning guestbook on my local dev environment (max os x). When I created my AppID (pythontest000) and tried deploying I keep getting an error cannot build indexes in a state of ERROR. Looking at my indexes in the admin console I notice that it is in ERROR state. I have tried the vacuum_index as suggested in the FAQ but that doesn't work either. Has anyone else had the same issue? -Arpan -- 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. -- 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.
[google-appengine] Re: Long running tasks impact on scheduler ?
+1 However please include sub-second tasks Just today I was looking at my logs/appstats. A client new recod write function I have that consists of three separate new kinds being put. It seems to run consistently at 250-300ms per HR put(). These occur serially: first one in my on-line handler, second in a high-rate/ high-token task queue, third in a low-rate/low-token queue. It is fine if the second and third puts occur minutes after the first. Seems much better than a 750 ms on-line handler function. Looking at my logs, nearly every write I do for indexed kinds is in this ballpark for latency. Only one on-line handler task is up around 500 ms because I have to do two puts in it. Everything else is 300 ms or less. So I am very happy with this setup. The recent thread where Brandon/John analyzed high instance rates shows what might happen if average latency viewed by the scheduler is skewed by a few very high latency functions. (Fortunately for my read/query/write client needs, I can avoid big OLH functions, but it is a serious design challenge.) However, the downside right now is that I do not know how the Task Queue scheduler interacts with the Instance Scheduler. My imagined ideal would be for developers to eventually be able to specify separate TQ instances (I believe Robert K. asked for this when he suggested TQ calls could be made to a separate version.) The Scheduler for these separate TQ instances would need to analyze cumulative pending queue tasks (I think the current TQ Scheduler does some of this), and only spawns new instances when the cumulative total exceeded a developer set value -- which would allow minute values rather than seconds. thanks, stevep On Sep 10, 6:03 am, John supp...@weespr.com wrote: I'd like to know what is the impact of tasks on the scheduler. Obviously tasks have very high latency (up to 10 minutes, but not using much cpu - mostly I/O). What is their impact on the scheduler if any ? Would be nice to have some sample use cases on how the scheduler is supposed to react. For example if I have 1 task which takes 1 minute, spawn every 1s, vs every 10s, vs 1 min ? Since the tasks use very low cpu, technically an instance could easily run 60 of them concurrently so 1 qps with 1-min tasks could take only one instance. But I doubt the scheduler would spawn only one instance. App Engine team, any insights ? Thanks -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: problems deploying recently - Please Help
Hmmm. Well, if you've already tried disabling precompilation, I've not really got other 'good' ideas. What if you increment the version number in app.yaml? Can you deploy to a different appid? How about deploying other code (even the hello world demo) to that app? Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:32, GAEfan ken...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, Robert. That was great advice. But, alas, it did not give me any hints as to why this is stalling. I tried --noisy as well. It just lists the files as they are uploading. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just stalls at some random file each time. I have also tried: --insecure --no_precompilation to diagnose, but the update still stalls somewhere randomly. Weird. Any other ideas? -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Google App engine NO LONGER FOR SMALL DEVELOPERS
Hey Romesh, What about combining your apps into one, perhaps using namespaces to segregate data?Perhaps you might be able to take advantage of some economies of scale, and make your many small apps act as a bigger app. Also, maybe you can come up with some different business model from the PHP developers. Who knows, maybe you'll be able to become a market leader in that area. App Engine is a global app and hence subject to arbitrage conditions. Given their target markets, their price point will likely be setup for the going rates in the higher priced markets. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 07:13, romesh soni soni.rom...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you all for your valuable comments. I liked the appstats stuff and will use it. Hey Greg/Jeff, I know it sounds like a joke that a person is earning such a small amount and is running a business. But that is the truth for us here. The market is very small and clients are not willing to pay. Moreover, all php developers here are charging the same amount and even I know that is not doing a business. If I need to work for local clients,I need to have this rates, otherwise I will not be able to survive here. I am just trying to make a few clients here. I know how commercial apps are charged and in International market what are all kinds of charges companies put in front of customers. That is a big market there you guys are playing. And if you think that I should focus on international clients then you see that what option I have - sites like freelancer, vworker?? I guess you guys know what rates are their so I do not need to discuss that. Thanks Romesh On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote: I generally share this opinion - seriously, if $9/mo is a problem, you're not running a business. That's two lates (one in NYC). That would be lattes. 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. 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. -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Long running tasks impact on scheduler ?
I'd very much like to know how long-running (over 1000ms) requests are treated by the new scheduler as well. Previously I believe they were basically ignored, and hence would not cause new instances to be spun up. And, yes I would very much like to have control over how task queues are treated with regards to the scheduler. We've currently got the fail-fast header (X-AppEngine-FailFast), which helps quite a bit. But, I'd really love to let my queues spin up new instances once the latency hits a certain point while always serving user requests with high priority. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:04, stevep prosse...@gmail.com wrote: +1 However please include sub-second tasks Just today I was looking at my logs/appstats. A client new recod write function I have that consists of three separate new kinds being put. It seems to run consistently at 250-300ms per HR put(). These occur serially: first one in my on-line handler, second in a high-rate/ high-token task queue, third in a low-rate/low-token queue. It is fine if the second and third puts occur minutes after the first. Seems much better than a 750 ms on-line handler function. Looking at my logs, nearly every write I do for indexed kinds is in this ballpark for latency. Only one on-line handler task is up around 500 ms because I have to do two puts in it. Everything else is 300 ms or less. So I am very happy with this setup. The recent thread where Brandon/John analyzed high instance rates shows what might happen if average latency viewed by the scheduler is skewed by a few very high latency functions. (Fortunately for my read/query/write client needs, I can avoid big OLH functions, but it is a serious design challenge.) However, the downside right now is that I do not know how the Task Queue scheduler interacts with the Instance Scheduler. My imagined ideal would be for developers to eventually be able to specify separate TQ instances (I believe Robert K. asked for this when he suggested TQ calls could be made to a separate version.) The Scheduler for these separate TQ instances would need to analyze cumulative pending queue tasks (I think the current TQ Scheduler does some of this), and only spawns new instances when the cumulative total exceeded a developer set value -- which would allow minute values rather than seconds. thanks, stevep On Sep 10, 6:03 am, John supp...@weespr.com wrote: I'd like to know what is the impact of tasks on the scheduler. Obviously tasks have very high latency (up to 10 minutes, but not using much cpu - mostly I/O). What is their impact on the scheduler if any ? Would be nice to have some sample use cases on how the scheduler is supposed to react. For example if I have 1 task which takes 1 minute, spawn every 1s, vs every 10s, vs 1 min ? Since the tasks use very low cpu, technically an instance could easily run 60 of them concurrently so 1 qps with 1-min tasks could take only one instance. But I doubt the scheduler would spawn only one instance. App Engine team, any insights ? Thanks -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
I would like to be able to limit *active* instances too. Particularly for my 'testing' applications. I don't want to have 20 or 30 instances spun up while I'm testing stuff. Would prefer to limit it. It would be handy to prevent hitting over-quota errors at the risk of degraded performance. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:39, Gerald Tan woefulwab...@gmail.com wrote: I wished Google made it clearer, but guys, please stop worrying about the Blue Total Instances line when it comes to billing. You are NOT charged for the Blue line, but for the YELLOW Active Instances line plus 1. Your actual Instance-Hour change is Max Idle Instance plus Active Instance (except when you have 0 instances up where you will be charged 0). If you set Max Idle Instance to 1. Your free application should have no problem staying under the 28 Instance-Hour quota even if the scheduler decides to spawn 2-4 instances for you all day, as long as your Active Instances average is below 0.1666 Again, IGNORE THE BLUE LINE. Worry about keeping the YELLOW line below 0.1666 -- 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/-/FGV2F-eHOXMJ. 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.
[google-appengine] How can 100MB of data use 1GB of space?
I have just 100MB of data at my table, but its using 1GB of space, why? The app name is graficosbovespa4 -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] About the mail api, how do developers know if a mail is sent successfully or not?
Email is basically asynchronous. You send the message to your SMTP server, and your SMTP server forwards it along, eventually being delivered to the recipients SMTP server. It can potentially fail or be rejected at any number of hops along the way. Check out the last paragraph of the Mail Overview - Sending Mail section. http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/mail/overview.html#Sending_Mail Perhaps you should try to setup the email you send messages from to forward to your app. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:29, Tapir tapir@gmail.com wrote: Seems the mail api doesn't care if a mail receiver is reachable. -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] How can 100MB of data use 1GB of space?
Hey Bruno, This is most likely due to indexes. Disable indexing of any properties you don't need to query on. If you'd like more details, star issue 2740. http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=2740 If you're using the blobstore, it may also contribute. Stored tasks do as well. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 13:13, Bruno Croys bruno.cr...@gmail.com wrote: I have just 100MB of data at my table, but its using 1GB of space, why? The app name is graficosbovespa4 -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
Is this really true, that if you burst to 100 instances you won't get the 15-minute charges? Even if you have it set to automatic? I'd like to hear an official voice on this matter. I updated the FAQ with a link to your explanation. Although I have to admit that i'm still somewhat confused about when the 15-minute charge will apply. Jeff On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Tim meer...@gmail.com wrote: Quote: In addition, there is a 15-minute charge ($0.02) every time an instance starts Sorry to keep banging on about this, but see the latest explanations of how the pricing works... what you report here is what we all heard, but it's not true. A maximum number of max-idle-instances have a 15-minute charge every time they start up (in return for which they'll stay in memory for at least 15 minutes) but any instances beyond that count do NOT have a 15-minute charge for starting up, they are charged only for the time they are actively serving requests (subject, I expect, to some granularity in the billing system, but this should be considerably less than 15 minutes). If you have max-idle set to 1, and a 1 minute massive burst meant that 100 instances were started, but then the traffic died back to nothing, then only 1 of those instances would have the 15 minute charge (and would be effectively guaranteed to stay in memory that long) - the scheduler may even decide, if the machines are not needed for other apps and there's spare capacity, to keep some or many of the 100 instances in memory (there may be another burst), but even if it does so, you're not paying for the other 99 being idle - it's what I termed the free-idle state. Cheers -- Tim -- 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/-/wFY7XNN8yzsJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
Ok, I understand what you want, and perhaps that makes sense... but this isn't really relevant to the price change. The curent behavior of GAE is to provide best-quality service until your budget runs out, then fail. The post-change behavior will be the same. And really, any benefit you get from this will be statistical noise compared to the benefit you'll get by turning on multithreading. If each instance can serve 10 concurrent requests, this means you need one tenth the number of instances. If you want to reduce your instance charges, This Is The Answer, Period. Jeff On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Steve unetright.thebas...@xoxy.net wrote: I would much rather specify a hard limit for number of active instances so my app scales up to that point and then degrades progressively. At that point the limit is reached, latencies would increase with increasing traffic, but if I was smart I would have set the limit so the higher traffic would not be able to exhaust my budget because instances stop increasing. So if 30 instances worth of users were hammering my 10 hard limited instances, their browser loads would be unpleasant, but the site wouldn't go completely offline. The current reality is that I can only limit idle instances. As active traffic increases, the scheduler can spin up and actually exhaust my budget. So browser latencies would be nicer for a bit, but then suddenly hit a brick wall. After my budget is exhausted, now I've got 30 instances worth of users all hammering 1 single remaining instance. For all intents, my site is offline. In fact, if my budget is exhausted, I think it will go completely offline perhaps running 0 instances but definitely not able to do datastore operations. That's not a red herring. It's legitimately needing a way to limit performance scaling so costs stay within a manageable budget. -- 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/-/K_KO68dzq1UJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Re: Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
+1 for max active instances On Sep 10, 12:51 pm, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to be able to limit *active* instances too. Particularly for my 'testing' applications. I don't want to have 20 or 30 instances spun up while I'm testing stuff. Would prefer to limit it. It would be handy to prevent hitting over-quota errors at the risk of degraded performance. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:39, Gerald Tan woefulwab...@gmail.com wrote: I wished Google made it clearer, but guys, please stop worrying about the Blue Total Instances line when it comes to billing. You are NOT charged for the Blue line, but for the YELLOW Active Instances line plus 1. Your actual Instance-Hour change is Max Idle Instance plus Active Instance (except when you have 0 instances up where you will be charged 0). If you set Max Idle Instance to 1. Your free application should have no problem staying under the 28 Instance-Hour quota even if the scheduler decides to spawn 2-4 instances for you all day, as long as your Active Instances average is below 0.1666 Again, IGNORE THE BLUE LINE. Worry about keeping the YELLOW line below 0.1666 -- 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/-/FGV2F-eHOXMJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
I would also like to hear an official clear explanation of this. I've seen various conflicting answers on this, and all of the published docs I've seen indicate Jeff's initial assessment is correct. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 13:30, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote: Is this really true, that if you burst to 100 instances you won't get the 15-minute charges? Even if you have it set to automatic? I'd like to hear an official voice on this matter. I updated the FAQ with a link to your explanation. Although I have to admit that i'm still somewhat confused about when the 15-minute charge will apply. Jeff On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Tim meer...@gmail.com wrote: Quote: In addition, there is a 15-minute charge ($0.02) every time an instance starts Sorry to keep banging on about this, but see the latest explanations of how the pricing works... what you report here is what we all heard, but it's not true. A maximum number of max-idle-instances have a 15-minute charge every time they start up (in return for which they'll stay in memory for at least 15 minutes) but any instances beyond that count do NOT have a 15-minute charge for starting up, they are charged only for the time they are actively serving requests (subject, I expect, to some granularity in the billing system, but this should be considerably less than 15 minutes). If you have max-idle set to 1, and a 1 minute massive burst meant that 100 instances were started, but then the traffic died back to nothing, then only 1 of those instances would have the 15 minute charge (and would be effectively guaranteed to stay in memory that long) - the scheduler may even decide, if the machines are not needed for other apps and there's spare capacity, to keep some or many of the 100 instances in memory (there may be another burst), but even if it does so, you're not paying for the other 99 being idle - it's what I termed the free-idle state. Cheers -- Tim -- 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/-/wFY7XNN8yzsJ. 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. -- 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.
[google-appengine] Re: About the mail api, how do developers know if a mail is sent successfully or not?
Google's mail api is rather limited and in my experience subject to being flagged as spam. You may want to try out Amazon's SES. I have used it with great success. They have methods to inform you if an email you sent is returned as undeliverable. They also have a high rate of deliverability. There is a python library available which makes sending Amazon SES a snap via GAE. On Sep 10, 1:18 pm, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote: Email is basically asynchronous. You send the message to your SMTP server, and your SMTP server forwards it along, eventually being delivered to the recipients SMTP server. It can potentially fail or be rejected at any number of hops along the way. Check out the last paragraph of the Mail Overview - Sending Mail section. http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/mail/overview.html#Sendi... Perhaps you should try to setup the email you send messages from to forward to your app. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:29, Tapir tapir@gmail.com wrote: Seems the mail api doesn't care if a mail receiver is reachable. -- 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 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-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.
Re: [google-appengine] About the mail api, how do developers know if a mail is sent successfully or not?
On Sep 10, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Robert Kluin wrote: Email is basically asynchronous. And yet the most common timeout error I see in my apps is: DeadlineExceededError: The API call mail.Send() took too long to respond and was cancelled. I know this is a totally different kind of synchronous than you were talking about, but it's ironic, no? If there's one thing a distributed system should be able to do with no delay, it's sending email. -Joshua -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM, WeatherPhilip philip-goo...@gladstonefamily.net wrote: This message may be true, but that just makes it worse. Under the new scheme, my billing moves from $0.00 (fall within the free app boundaries) to $0.01 - $0.08 per day. I guess that people wont be able to use my app during the last hour (or so) of the day. When Google said that few apps would continue to be free, I think they meant to say that no apps would continue to be free *if* they handled any requests. If the free quota for instance hours was (say) 28, then a lot of the free apps would still continue to be free. It is 28 hours :) http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/09/few-adjustments-to-app-engines-upcoming.html Not reflected in the 'billing estimate's yet. Get 9 hours of backends free too. A number of cronjobs etc, could be tweaked to use backends (particully if use pull queues) to save on your front end usage. -- 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.
[google-appengine] Re: About the mail api, how do developers know if a mail is sent successfully or not?
This error was happening a year ago when I used to send gae email. I get far less urlfetch timeouts when sending via Amazon... If you are going to email with gae you need to do it via tasks so they will retry. You will continue to see this mail.send timeout. On Sep 10, 2:46 pm, Joshua Smith joshuaesm...@charter.net wrote: On Sep 10, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Robert Kluin wrote: Email is basically asynchronous. And yet the most common timeout error I see in my apps is: DeadlineExceededError: The API call mail.Send() took too long to respond and was cancelled. I know this is a totally different kind of synchronous than you were talking about, but it's ironic, no? If there's one thing a distributed system should be able to do with no delay, it's sending email. -Joshua -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: About the mail api, how do developers know if a mail is sent successfully or not?
Yes, I always use a task to send email for exactly this reason. Easily solved, but really kind of silly. On Sep 10, 2011, at 5:16 PM, JH wrote: This error was happening a year ago when I used to send gae email. I get far less urlfetch timeouts when sending via Amazon... If you are going to email with gae you need to do it via tasks so they will retry. You will continue to see this mail.send timeout. On Sep 10, 2:46 pm, Joshua Smith joshuaesm...@charter.net wrote: On Sep 10, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Robert Kluin wrote: Email is basically asynchronous. And yet the most common timeout error I see in my apps is: DeadlineExceededError: The API call mail.Send() took too long to respond and was cancelled. I know this is a totally different kind of synchronous than you were talking about, but it's ironic, no? If there's one thing a distributed system should be able to do with no delay, it's sending email. -Joshua -- 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.
[google-appengine] Re: Python Tutorial Guestbook App gives index error upon deployment
I ended up not having to post an issue. I have been able to resolve this problem by the following method of deployment a few days later. 1. I removed the greeting entry in the index.yaml and performed appcfg.py vacuum_indexes projectfolder/. 2. I checked the admin console after some time to make sure that the datastore had been removed. 3. I then rebuilt the index.yaml entry for greeting automatically by launching it locally using dev_appserver.py projectfolder/. 4. Finally I tried deploying again using appcfg,py projectfolder/ 6. This ran successfully without giving me the error I was receiving about failure to build indexes. On Sep 10, 12:59 pm, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote: Make sure you supply a description subject. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:30, arpz arpan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm trying to post a production issue using the link you provided but the submit button is grayed out. On Sep 10, 1:22 am, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Arpan, Yes this happens sometimes. File a production issue.http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/entry?template=Produc... Robert On Sep 9, 2011 2:33 PM, arpz arpan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I finished the Python getting started tutorial and had a functioning guestbook on my local dev environment (max os x). When I created my AppID (pythontest000) and tried deploying I keep getting an error cannot build indexes in a state of ERROR. Looking at my indexes in the admin console I notice that it is in ERROR state. I have tried the vacuum_index as suggested in the FAQ but that doesn't work either. Has anyone else had the same issue? -Arpan -- 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 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-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.
[google-appengine] Re: Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
Please star Issue 5858http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5858 that I just opened requesting Max-Instances control. -- 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/-/9M0dTabYe3QJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Instance Hours, Python Concurrency, and Regret
I (and many others I think) have been frustrated with how instance hours billing can explode in the face of traffic spikes. I've submitted Issue 5858 http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5858 to help us put a hard limit on that scaling out. Regardless, it is quite clear that the only real hope is to implement multi-threaded request handling. Java has that option and the new Pytohn 2.7 runtime is supposed to bring that. Seeing how important concurrent handling is going to be to keeping bills reasonable, it's a real shame that the Python's New-GIL improved concurrencyhttp://docs.python.org/dev/py3k/whatsnew/3.2.html#multi-threading was rejected for Python 2.7 in part to keep encouraging adoption of 3.X. -- 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/-/qui7GhQvcCcJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Re: New blog post about adjustments to the pricing rollout
This is some much needed good news! For low traffic apps, increasing free instance hours from 24 to 28 will make it possible again to stay within the free quota (as long as 'max idle instances' on the 'application settings' page is set to 1.) This will make a lot of people happy. However, for other apps, I think it would be better if the python price discount was confirmed to stay in effect until some set period of time after concurrency becomes available (rather than the relatively vague statement given here.) If estimates could be provided ASAP as to how many instance hours will likely be used when concurrency becomes available, that would prevent another round of pricing shock kicking in. I would guess that for many apps, the number of 'active instances' will be reduced to a number closer to 'total cpu seconds used per second' (from the dashboard charts) plus some overhead. For high latency apps, such as those which are doing a lot of urlfetching, I expect that memory usage will become the limiting factor, but they will do much better from concurrency. For example, once concurrency is available and the 50% python price discount has ended, an app which has 10 active instances on average, and total cpu seconds per second of 6, will probably increase in instance cost by at least 20% (since cpu usage is high enough that only a little under 2 requests can be dealt with concurently and at full speed by a single instance). However, an app which has 100 active instances, and total cpu seconds per second of 6, might be looking at a saving of 80% (if memory usage is low enough that 10 requests can be dealt with concurrently by a single instance). I am probably making several bad assumptions here, so I would prefer Google to be making these estimates on a per application basis, no matter how approximate and non-binding those estimates might be. On Sep 9, 7:57 pm, Gregory D'alesandre gr...@google.com wrote: Hey All, I wanted to highlight that we just announced a few changes based on the feedback we've gotten:http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/09/few-adjustments-to-app-en... . I hope that helps to alleviate some of the concerns many of you have had. Greg Full text is here: - Last week we rolled out side-by-side billinghttp://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/08/50-credit-for-new-billing... to give you a more detailed preview of how you’ll be affected by the price changes that we announced in Mayhttp://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-google-app We received a variety of feedback and have made a few important changes based on it. Our intent is to be as open and transparent about the changes as possible and to give you enough time to prepare. In that spirit, our Engineering Director has also shared some of his personal thoughtshttps://plus.google.com/110401818717224273095/posts/AA3sBWG92gu . We understand that the new rates surprised some of you. We’ve been listening closely to your feedback, and we wanted to share an update on the changes we’re making to help ensure you have an accurate picture of how the new pricing will affect your app. Although prices will increase, we’re confident that you’ll find App Engine still provides great value. Based on your feedback we’re taking the following steps: - *Extended review period*: We’re now giving you almost eight weeks before introducing the new pricing. You now have until November 1 to configure and tune your application to manage your costs. - *Increased free Instance Hours*: We are increasing the number of free Instance Hours from 24 to 28. This means that people who are using a free app to try out App Engine can run a single instance all day with a few spikes and still remain below our free quota. This will be reflected in the comparison bills soon. - *Extended discount*: We’ll continue to offer the 50% discount on instance prices until December 1st, at which time Python 2.7 should be available. Python 2.7 will include support for concurrent requests, which could further lower your costs. - *Faster Usage Reports*: We appreciate the importance of quickly being able to see the effect your tuning has on your bill and starting today we’ll provide your Usage Report (and the included comparison bills) within one day instead of the previous three. - *Better analysis tools*: We are working on better ways for you to model the cost of your apps. We will add the “billing” line into the instances graph on the Admin Console. We’re adding datastore billing information into the dev console to making it easier for you to track how the changes you make affect your bill, which should also help lower the cost. - *Premier accounts*: we know a lot of our customers are eagerly awaiting Premier accounts to get operational support, offline billing, unlimited accounts, and the SLA. So we will not wait until November 1st
[google-appengine] Re: Disappearing posts
Thanks for confirming that I wasn't just imagining it! Ikai - I will wait until you determine what happened, before reposting (if that is considered suitable.) My post was regarding a user script that I wrote, which displays new-pricing estimates for the current day on the quota details page. It also shows how these values have been calculated. Since billing history is much more up to day than it was just a few days ago, the script isn't as useful as it once might have been, but is nevertheless something that several people are finding useful. On Sep 10, 11:42 am, Gary Frederick g...@jsoft.com wrote: We had someone with a similar problem a week or so ago. The would get posted and then 'go away'. We did not find what was going on. He picked a name that could have triggered an auto-spam filter, changed it and his posts started showing up. It does not look like you are in that situation??? Gary -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Instance Hours, Python Concurrency, and Regret
Why is this unique to instance hours? Surely all quota are subject to exhaustion in face of a traffic spike. Why you can set a daily budget. Although artifically capping instances would of course limit use of the other quota too :) On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Steve unetright.thebas...@xoxy.net wrote: I (and many others I think) have been frustrated with how instance hours billing can explode in the face of traffic spikes. I've submitted Issue 5858 to help us put a hard limit on that scaling out. Regardless, it is quite clear that the only real hope is to implement multi-threaded request handling. Java has that option and the new Pytohn 2.7 runtime is supposed to bring that. Seeing how important concurrent handling is going to be to keeping bills reasonable, it's a real shame that the Python's New-GIL improved concurrency was rejected for Python 2.7 in part to keep encouraging adoption of 3.X. -- 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/-/qui7GhQvcCcJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Remote API: how to find out the app ID of the server??
I'm working on a Java app for backing up and restoring entities for my GAE apps using Remote API. I'm using RemoteApiInstaller, DatastoreService, etc. I want to be able to restore the entities to an app that's different from the one they came from, for testing purposes and to migrate from one app to another. For example, I might want to migrate data into the local dev server. I'm doing this by slammin the correct app ID into the datastore key before storing it on the new server. How can I find out the app ID of the server I'm connected to? When I look at the source code for RemoteApiInstaller, there is a (not public) function called getAppIdFromServer that looks interesting. Thoughts? Feelings? thanks fred -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: About the mail api, how do developers know if a mail is sent successfully or not?
Yeah this is pretty silly; as Jamie mentioned, you're almost certainly better off using Amazon's service for sending emails. I've never spoke with anyone who regrets switching. As I recall, various Googlers have suggested you might be better off using SES, or other similar services, as well. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 16:25, Joshua Smith joshuaesm...@charter.net wrote: Yes, I always use a task to send email for exactly this reason. Easily solved, but really kind of silly. On Sep 10, 2011, at 5:16 PM, JH wrote: This error was happening a year ago when I used to send gae email. I get far less urlfetch timeouts when sending via Amazon... If you are going to email with gae you need to do it via tasks so they will retry. You will continue to see this mail.send timeout. On Sep 10, 2:46 pm, Joshua Smith joshuaesm...@charter.net wrote: On Sep 10, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Robert Kluin wrote: Email is basically asynchronous. And yet the most common timeout error I see in my apps is: DeadlineExceededError: The API call mail.Send() took too long to respond and was cancelled. I know this is a totally different kind of synchronous than you were talking about, but it's ironic, no? If there's one thing a distributed system should be able to do with no delay, it's sending email. -Joshua -- 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. -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Python Tutorial Guestbook App gives index error upon deployment
Yeah that is quite common. I thought you had already tried to vacuum your indexes. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 17:00, arpz arpan...@gmail.com wrote: I ended up not having to post an issue. I have been able to resolve this problem by the following method of deployment a few days later. 1. I removed the greeting entry in the index.yaml and performed appcfg.py vacuum_indexes projectfolder/. 2. I checked the admin console after some time to make sure that the datastore had been removed. 3. I then rebuilt the index.yaml entry for greeting automatically by launching it locally using dev_appserver.py projectfolder/. 4. Finally I tried deploying again using appcfg,py projectfolder/ 6. This ran successfully without giving me the error I was receiving about failure to build indexes. On Sep 10, 12:59 pm, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote: Make sure you supply a description subject. Robert On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:30, arpz arpan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm trying to post a production issue using the link you provided but the submit button is grayed out. On Sep 10, 1:22 am, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Arpan, Yes this happens sometimes. File a production issue.http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/entry?template=Produc... Robert On Sep 9, 2011 2:33 PM, arpz arpan...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I finished the Python getting started tutorial and had a functioning guestbook on my local dev environment (max os x). When I created my AppID (pythontest000) and tried deploying I keep getting an error cannot build indexes in a state of ERROR. Looking at my indexes in the admin console I notice that it is in ERROR state. I have tried the vacuum_index as suggested in the FAQ but that doesn't work either. Has anyone else had the same issue? -Arpan -- 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 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-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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: The Unofficial Google App Engine Price Change FAQ
The way I understand it, we are being charged Max Idle Instance + Active Instance. So if we are not charged for extra Instances being spun up beyond the Max Idle Instance, then I don't think we can be charged for the 15 minutes. I believe the 15 minutes charge applies in 2 cases: - Backend Instances - When the number of Total Instance drops below Max Idle Instance (rare, but it happens), it will take 15 minutes before reduced charges kick in My guess is people have been seeing the 15 mins spin up charge for Backend Instances and assumed the same thing is charged for Frontend Instances. -- 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/-/F--wDSseI_EJ. 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
That's just silly. Again, you are paying for Max Idle Instance + Active Instances. It doesn't matter if you have 1 Total Instance, 5 Total Instance or 30 Total Instance, as long as you set Max Idle Instance to 1, YOU WILL BE INCURRING THE SAME COST. The Total Instances does NOT affect your Active Instances. Active Instances is affected by your workload. Your workload doesn't change whether you have 1, 5 or 30 Total Instances. -- 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/-/QBj5xx8Wb9oJ. 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.
[google-appengine] Python library for uploading to AppEngine
Is there a python library for uploading code to AppEngine? I'd like to build an App that can upload code to other apps, has anyone done this already? -- Emlyn http://my.syyn.cc - Synchonise Google+, Facebook, WordPress and Google Buzz posts, comments and all. http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog Find me on Facebook and Buzz -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: The Amazing Story Of Appengine And The Two Orders Of Magnitude
Oh wow, you're absolutely right. Going back to the billing on the 4th of September (after I changed Max Idle Instances and before I made any code changes), I was already seeing the full price drop. So, I didn't need to make the changes to spread out my tasks; that dropped the blue line down, but I don't pay for the blue line. So optimisation is even easier than I thought. Gerald, I'll quote you in an update to my post, if you're ok with that. On 11 September 2011 02:04, Gerald Tan woefulwab...@gmail.com wrote: Nice blog Emlyn. The reason why your Frontend Instance hours are lower than you expected is because you assumed that you will be billed for the area under the BLUE line in the Instance graph. It's not. You are being billed for the area under the YELLOW line (Active Instance) PLUS your Max Idle Instance setting. So your Active Instances is hovering at around ~0.72, and I assume you have set your application's Max Idle Instance to 1. Therefore ~1.72 * 24 = ~41.28 Instance Hours -- 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/-/dWoTZKzCy7kJ. 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. -- Emlyn http://my.syyn.cc - Synchonise Google+, Facebook, WordPress and Google Buzz posts, comments and all. http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog Find me on Facebook and Buzz -- 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.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Please add MIN idle instances and MAX total instances
It's not silly. When the workload exceeds your budget capacity, being able to limit the active instances would allow you to keep operating with increased latency. Not being able to limit the instances means your app will scale beautifully right up to the point where your budget is exhausted and you app nose dives. -- 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/-/OywwFtVu6oMJ. 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.
