date:20111214

There are 2 main differences:

1. Indexes. You probably want to mark most of the items as unindexed to
lower the cost of a datastore write and datastore storage.
2. Possible serialization/deserialization time. Items are stored as
protocol buffers (http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/). I don't know off the
top of my head how this performs with large arrays versus individual
properties. My suspicion is that there shouldn't be a real world
difference, but I haven't verified this with my own testing, and I don't
know how many properties you have in mind.

The documentation talks about query speed vs. get by key because that's
where the bulk of the time will be spent (cross machine RPCs).

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Miguel doctormig...@gmail.com wrote:

 I am designing the model of an app that needs a lot of values to be
 stored and I am thinking about which is the best in terms of
 retrieving-time:
 - define an array with all of them inside
 - define a property for each of them

 My fear is that in the second case I will have a lot of column in
 the datastore: which are the differences in terms of retrieving an
 Entity with a lot of property or an entity with just 1 array?
 I read a lot of documentation but it talks only about the difference
 between the get and the query and not about the properties' number.

 Thank you
 Michele

 --
 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.

Re: [appengine-java] How to make someone an admin for your app.

... I was about to write an answer, too. Thanks for the laugh!

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Drew Spencer slugmand...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi coders,

 I've just managed to deploy my first app to my Google Apps domain (
 utilitiessavings.co.uk), and it seems to be working ok, BUT I now realise
 that being an admin for the google apps domain does not make me an admin
 for the application itself, and I can't work out how to add myself as an
 admin for the app.

 I am using my regular gmail account to deploy the app, and I went to
 Administration  Permissions in the control panel and added my google
 apps email as a developer, then clicked the link in the email and boom!
 Admin away!

 Yeah, I don't need help, but this is one of those situations where I
 solved it as I was writing the post, so I thought it might help someone in
 the future if I just posted it anyway.

 Happy coding!

 Drew


  --
 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/-/bieSsZiU4Q8J.
 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.

Re: [appengine-java] App is very slow on production - how to fix it?

Could this be startup time? A loading request? This is when we have to
start up the JVM and the Wicket framework. Do subsequent requests return
much faster?

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Paul pgronkiew...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 My app is very fast and smooth when run locally, no lag at all. But
 when I deploy it on server it gets really slow. Response times are few
 times of the acceptable ones. Pages load in 20-80ms locally, but
 average in production is about 500-800ms. Acceptable time would be
 around 100ms for most operations. I have appstats on my app, but I
 cannot really get what is causing the problem.

 I check details in appstats and I see 3 things:
 datastore_v3.Get11ms (8ms api)
 RPC Total 11ms (8ms api)
 Grand Total 525ms (8ms cpu+api)

 There are details only about datastore_v3.Get, which is not a thing
 causing all that lag.

 How can I determine what is the cause of all that?

 I am using 1.5.3 SDK, HR datastore and Apache Wicket framework.

 --
 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.

Re: [appengine-java] Indexes - how to deal with them?

Every property creates 2 indexes, so if you don't want to incur write
operations, mark properties you will never query on (select from people
where age=26 - you need both an ASC and DESC index on the age property)
as unindexed.

Here's an old but good talk about how these indexes are used and why they
are needed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx5gdoNpcZM

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Paul pgronkiew...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I am looking through my app and there are many index writes, way too
 many. How to handle them properly? I guess I should set unindexed to
 most properties, can I do it for whole entity and then just set
 false on fields that I want indexed? Will that work?

 @Extension(vendorName datanucleus, key gae.
 unindexed, valuetrue)

 Is there any way to see what is indexed and where do my index write
 operations come from? My other problem is that even when I am not
 doing any db operations, I have few hundred index write ops per day.
 The only thing that is happening is pingdom testing my login page,
 without doing anything. How can I track what is doing that operations?

 --
 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.

Re: [appengine-java] Re: Master/Slave - High Replication migration experience

I believe namespaces should work. What doesn't work is blobstore entities
(datastore blobs DO work).

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:17 PM, andrew andrew.macken...@bcntouch.comwrote:

 Ikai,

 Any additional information available on the features of this new tool?

 Specifically,  support for copying all/multiple namespaces from one
 datastore to another...

 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.



-- 
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] Re: ConcurrentModificationException question

2011-12-14 Thread Broc Seib

I think you are mistaken about ConcurrentModificationException meaning
it will eventually commit.

If you get a ConcurrentModificationException, then that means the
entity *failed* to write (because another write has modified the
update timestamp on that entity group). You must catch that exception
and try to write again (unless you don't want to overwrite).

You can see this behavior first hand here: http://gaetestjig.appspot.com/
and click on the Unique Constraint tab. Click the Advance Alice
button four times, and click the Advance Bobby button four times (in
any order). Now click on either button a fifth time and it will write
the entity to the data store, and clicking the other button will
experience a ConcurrentModificationException.

Broc


On Dec 13, 5:48 pm, coltsith conla...@gmail.com wrote:
 I recently got a ConcurrentModificationException, and the
 documentation states that this will be committed and eventually will
 be applied successfully. However I got to thinking of a possible
 outcome:

 Request A modifies entity
 Request B modifies entity and receives ConcurrentModificationException
 D
 Request E modifies entity
 ConcurrentModificationException D commits and is applied, which
 overwrites Request E's work.

 Can this happen? Or does Request E get its own
 ConcurrentModificationException since (D) hasn't been committed yet?

 Many 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] connection time out when uploading simple app with lone html page

2011-12-14 Thread vivek.nama

I got error when uploading a simple app with a lone html page to the
google app -
java.net.ConnectException: Connection timed out

Since I am behind firewall and proxy and read this post I changed the
appcfg but now have new issue -
java.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException:
sun.security.validator.ValidatorException: No trusted certificate
found

Post -
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java/browse_thread/thread/f695c92c000616a/e3bfa431adf6a4cf?hide_quotes=no#msg_e3bfa431adf6a4cf

Please advise if need trusted certificate locally?

-- 
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] google app engine for java- using low level API to fetch data-how to send message after initially connecting to remote url

2011-12-14 Thread Arvind

In a Google App Engine for Java web app, I am trying to use the low
level api to invoke an XML RPC ...After looking at the docs, I figured
out the following code to connect using low level API-the reason why I
want to use Low Level API is so that I can set the timeout value
myself--

 String mrtime=120;
 java.lang.Double maxresponsetime;
 maxresponsetime = Double.valueOf(mrtime).doubleValue();
 HTTPRequest req=  new  HTTPRequest(url, HTTPMethod.GET,
disallowTruncate().setDeadline(maxresponsetime));
 HTTPResponse response=
com.google.appengine.api.urlfetch.URLFetchServiceFactory.getURLFetchService().fetch(req);
 String line=;
 String resp=;
 resp=new String(response.getContent(), UTF-8);


The above code is suitable for a scenario where the remote URL is
accessed by GAE...However I have to also send an XML message
containing name of function as well as input parameters (these are
stored in variable named 'message')... How do I send that message to
the remote URL, and after that obtain the response? This is normally
taken care of by the HTTP Connection object by setting its inputstream
and outputstream...

Regards,
Arvind.

-- 
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] Master/Slave - High Replication migration experience

2011-12-14 Thread Kyle Baley

Alas, bad timing, I suppose. We pulled the trigger because we found we 
could make up tons of excuses to put it off if we set our minds to it. Wait 
to see if anyone else had issues, wait until new pricing takes effect, wait 
until the migration tool is available, etc, etc. So we sucked it up. 

I guess the advice I have is to make sure you have a backup plan in place 
just in case.

-- 
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/-/j8pW5j0fKSIJ.
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] connection time out when uploading simple app with lone html page

2011-12-14 Thread Vik

Vivek

you need to set the proxy settings in your eclipse ide in the preferences.
That should fix it. No need to change your appcfg

Thankx and Regards

Vik
Founder
http://www.sakshum.org
http://blog.sakshum.org

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:21 AM, vivek.nama vivek.n...@gmail.com wrote:

I got error when uploading a simple app with a lone html page to the
google app -
java.net.ConnectException: Connection timed out

Since I am behind firewall and proxy and read this post I changed the
appcfg but now have new issue -
java.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException:
sun.security.validator.ValidatorException: No trusted certificate
found

Post -

http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java/browse_thread/thread/f695c92c000616a/e3bfa431adf6a4cf?hide_quotes=no#msg_e3bfa431adf6a4cf

Please advise if need trusted certificate locally?

--
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] basic question about deploy application

2011-12-14 Thread rprss

oh,I deploy my application on app engine，following the help，but I can't 
visit the guestbook and I don't see the hello world
http://eropsycongroo.appspot.com
http://eropsycongroo.appspot.com/guestbook
This sample is the same to the help


-- 
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/-/IIDkCpqtg8oJ.
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: Sample Application using SOAP and webservices using Google App Engine Project

Hi, 
 
Thxs for the link but i cant able to run the sample application after 
deploying it in the google application and the follows errors are fired 
when i try to access the webpage .
 
 
 HTTP ERROR 500 

Problem accessing /hellosoapclient. Reason: 

The server sent HTTP status code 404: OK

 

Can u have any idea on this

 

Regards,

Suresh

-- 
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/-/L9_B7cgxqbcJ.
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] Exception while running the sample SOAP Project in Google Engine

Hi all,
 
  
 HTTP ERROR 500 

Problem accessing /hellosoapclient. Reason: 

The server sent HTTP status code 404: OK

 

This is the exception i am getting when i try to run the sample soap 
application in the google app engine.

Any ideas, warmly welcome

 

 

Regards,

Suresh

-- 
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/-/bRUSTP5Q_FoJ.
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: Sample Application using SOAP and webservices using Google App Engine Project

Hi Simon,
 
How to find whether JMS supports HTML protocol ? I am purely new to JMS.
 
Regards,
Suresh

-- 
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/-/O2_Iuo7oPEwJ.
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: basic question about deploy application

Hi,
 
For me too check this yaar
 
 
  http://demosoapcligreet.appspot.com/
http://demosoapcligreet.appspot.com/HelloSoapClient.html
 
 
Any idea about this exception. Please enter some Text and select one from 
drop down and submit.
 
 
Regards,
Suresh

-- 
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/-/pQBPKszUlHEJ.
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] Basic Question Regarding Deploying the apps with Google Engine

Hi,
 
I had deployed the application in the google app engine and i am not able 
to access the page and exception fired as below pls check the given url for 
the same.
 
 
Url: 
 
http://1.demosoapcligreet.appspot.com/HelloSoapClient.html
 
Exception :
 
 HTTP ERROR 500 

Problem accessing /hellosoapclient. Reason: 

The server sent HTTP status code 404: OK

 Caused by:

com.sun.xml.internal.ws.client.ClientTransportException: The server sent HTTP 
status code 404: OK

-- 
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/-/ml1mDuedgvEJ.
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: Sample Application using SOAP and webservices using Google App Engine Project

2011-12-14 Thread Simon Knott

Hi,

A lot of the answers to your questions can be found by using a search 
engine, Suresh, and doing some work for yourself.  JMS does not support 
HTTP by default - you'll have to find a JMS provider which has an HTTP 
connector.

As for the 500 error, you need to look in your appengine console logs.

Cheers,
Simon

-- 
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/-/YRzN4vAPao4J.
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: Basic Question Regarding Deploying the apps with Google Engine

2011-12-14 Thread Simon Knott

Hi,

Do you normally do development Suresh, or are you just getting into it?  If 
it's the latter, I'd suggest not using GAE as your first attempt, as it 
really isn't the easiest development or test environment to start on.

The error you're getting is because the target of your SOAP call doesn't 
exist - whatever URL you've set up in your app is incorrect.  If you try 
accessing the same URL in your browser, you will get the same error 
response code.

Cheers,
Simon

-- 
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/-/L_w0D-cjgjgJ.
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: Securing cron urls / task urls using UserService and not using web.xml

2011-12-14 Thread andrew

And we can submit an enhancement request and all star it.

Seems silly that isUserAdmin() works sometimes and others not.

Existing issue reported is fixed as use the header.

-- 
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] Re: ConcurrentModificationException question

2011-12-14 Thread coltsith

Hi Broc, thanks for the reply.

This sounds great to me. I'm concerned about one small note on this
page: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/transactions.html

If your app receives an exception when submitting a transaction, it
does not always mean that the transaction failed. You can receive
DatastoreTimeoutException, ConcurrentModificationException, or
DatastoreFailureException exceptions in cases where transactions have
been committed and eventually will be applied successfully. Whenever
possible, make your datastore transactions idempotent so that if you
repeat a transaction, the end result will be the same.

Doesn't that mean I can still get a ConcurrentModificationException
even if the write was/will be successful? And if so then that example
I outlined could still be possible?

Thanks

On Dec 14, 4:43 pm, Broc Seib broc.s...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think you are mistaken about ConcurrentModificationException meaning
 it will eventually commit.

 If you get a ConcurrentModificationException, then that means the
 entity *failed* to write (because another write has modified the
 update timestamp on that entity group). You must catch that exception
 and try to write again (unless you don't want to overwrite).

 You can see this behavior first hand here:http://gaetestjig.appspot.com/
 and click on the Unique Constraint tab. Click the Advance Alice
 button four times, and click the Advance Bobby button four times (in
 any order). Now click on either button a fifth time and it will write
 the entity to the data store, and clicking the other button will
 experience a ConcurrentModificationException.

 Broc

 On Dec 13, 5:48 pm, coltsith conla...@gmail.com wrote:







  I recently got a ConcurrentModificationException, and the
  documentation states that this will be committed and eventually will
  be applied successfully. However I got to thinking of a possible
  outcome:

  Request A modifies entity
  Request B modifies entity and receives ConcurrentModificationException
  D
  Request E modifies entity
  ConcurrentModificationException D commits and is applied, which
  overwrites Request E's work.

  Can this happen? Or does Request E get its own
  ConcurrentModificationException since (D) hasn't been committed yet?

  Many 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.

[google-appengine] Re: Frontend Instance Class (Default F1? 128MB?) All my instances have been running around 256MB

2011-12-14 Thread Per

I'm confused by these changes too. Although I'm happy to have choice
(pay more for more speed sounds awesome) this leaves an odd
aftertaste  After all the communication issues around the recent
pricing changes, shouldn't it be quite obvious that people will ask
you about the details anyway? Wouldn't it help to spend a couple
minutes upfront, explaining this change/new feature better? Surely you
have spent many hours working on the implementation, why not share
some additional insight?

By default, all applications use the basic frontend instance setting
of 128MB memory and  600MHz CPU.

So, if F1 is what we've been using the past months, why don't you just
say so.  And if it happened to be F2, then people will find out
eventually, and you should say to too.

I can see a mysterious drop in performance of my application since the
22nd of November. I have not analysed it yet (it only occurred to me
now, since I was busy), but it would help a lot if you'd take the
guesswork out of these announcements -- because otherwise I am
somewhat tempted to believe that we've been on something similar to F2
and will now have to pay more to achieve the same old performance.
Please tell me it's not like this, and I'll shut up instantly :)

Cheers,
Per



On Dec 14, 12:03 pm, Scott Murphy sc...@pixoto.com wrote:
 Hi, I am confused.  Did the default used to be F2?  All my instances run 
 128MB of ram. How is this possible?  Does this mean that part of the memory
 is swapped to disk?  If I choose a larger instance class say (F4), will my
 Java Heap size automatically change to allow up to 512MB heap? Or is this
 extra memory not usable by the app?

 0..0 ms108112:44:46170.1 MBytes[image: Resident Icon]Resident0..0 ms
 27701 day, 21:07:27190.0 MBytes[image: Resident Icon]Resident0.0171905.0 ms
 14101 day, 5:35:31182.7 MBytes[image: Resident Icon]Resident0.4331114.4 ms
 402102:49:43239.3 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0..0 
 ms109701:00:15203.4
 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0..0 ms12500:12:01197.4 MBytes[image:
 Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.2331295.7 ms48500:22:12192.7 MBytes[image: Dynamic
 Icon]Dynamic0.4671081.0 ms696734:08:09245.1 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]
 Dynamic0.3831486.6 ms367314:03:36243.4 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic
 0..0 ms641304:15:35243.5 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.0503124.3
 ms600:02:07149.5 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.05030326.0 
 ms200:00:40136.2
 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.5671189.9 ms551503:33:30244.8 
 MBytes[image:
 Dynamic Icon]Dynamic

-- 
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] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Alan Xing

Dear there,

Our app 'snsanalytics' experienced more than 40% front end CPU hours usages
on Dec 13, comparing to Dec 12. Our traffic level on Dec 13 is actually
flat to less comparing to that of Dec 12. Except for the abnormal increase
of front end CPU hours, there is no any noticeable change on other resource
consumption like db write/read.

There is absolutely no change from our side that can explain this increase.
We didn't deploy any code in between. We didn't have any heavy lifting
operations. Nothing we did is unusual comparing to previous day.

Could any one from GAE team help explain/investigate what happened?

Thanks,
Alan

-- 
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] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Brandon Wirtz

People always assume that steady traffic yields steady pricing.

 

If your app spends most of its time waiting on API's like accessing the data
store, Small changes in the traffic pattern through out the day can change
the amount of concurrency and the number of Instances required to serve the
traffic.

 

If you had 1000 people show up for 5 minutes at the same time, your cost
will be much more than having 1000 people spread out in order through the
day.

 

 

 

From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Xing
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:16 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: [google-appengine] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over
previous day

 

Dear there,

 

Our app 'snsanalytics' experienced more than 40% front end CPU hours usages
on Dec 13, comparing to Dec 12. Our traffic level on Dec 13 is actually flat
to less comparing to that of Dec 12. Except for the abnormal increase of
front end CPU hours, there is no any noticeable change on other resource
consumption like db write/read.

 

There is absolutely no change from our side that can explain this increase.
We didn't deploy any code in between. We didn't have any heavy lifting
operations. Nothing we did is unusual comparing to previous day.

 

Could any one from GAE team help explain/investigate what happened?

 

Thanks,

Alan

 

-- 
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] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Alan Xing

Even though I have no proof that an extremely abnormal traffic pattern
change didn't occur. It does look like very unlikely. I closely monitored
the status at various time points in the day. The higher cost was spread
through the day. Number of front end instances was consistently higher
comparing to the previous day.

I'd speculate this is either a GAE change or a GAE error. It coincided with
the introduction of front end server classes and SDK 1.6.1.

To be accurate, our app front end server class was correctly set to F1 -
the default, not as other people reported in this mailing group.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:

 People always assume that steady traffic yields steady pricing.

 ** **

 If your app spends most of its time waiting on API’s like accessing the
 data store, Small changes in the traffic pattern through out the day can
 change the amount of concurrency and the number of Instances required to
 serve the traffic.

 ** **

 If you had 1000 people show up for 5 minutes at the same time, your cost
 will be much more than having 1000 people spread out in order through the
 day.

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 *From:* google-appengine@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 google-appengine@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Alan Xing
 *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:16 AM
 *To:* google-appengine@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* [google-appengine] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours
 over previous day

 ** **

 Dear there,

 ** **

 Our app 'snsanalytics' experienced more than 40% front end CPU hours
 usages on Dec 13, comparing to Dec 12. Our traffic level on Dec 13 is
 actually flat to less comparing to that of Dec 12. Except for the abnormal
 increase of front end CPU hours, there is no any noticeable change on other
 resource consumption like db write/read.

 ** **

 There is absolutely no change from our side that can explain this
 increase. We didn't deploy any code in between. We didn't have any heavy
 lifting operations. Nothing we did is unusual comparing to previous day.**
 **

 ** **

 Could any one from GAE team help explain/investigate what happened?

 ** **

 Thanks,

 Alan

 ** **

 --
 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] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Brian Quinlan

Hi Alan,

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Alan Xing alanx...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dear there,

 Our app 'snsanalytics' experienced more than 40% front end CPU hours usages
 on Dec 13, comparing to Dec 12. Our traffic level on Dec 13 is actually flat
 to less comparing to that of Dec 12. Except for the abnormal increase of
 front end CPU hours, there is no any noticeable change on other resource
 consumption like db write/read.

 There is absolutely no change from our side that can explain this increase.
 We didn't deploy any code in between. We didn't have any heavy lifting
 operations. Nothing we did is unusual comparing to previous day.

 Could any one from GAE team help explain/investigate what happened?

I took a very quick look at your application.

It looks like your datastore reads and writes did increase by about
10% between those two days. Your latency also increased for about 12
hours (without an increase in CPU usage).

It is possible that a small increase in datastore latency slowed down
your application enough that more instances were needed to service
requests. It could also be that you had some particularly long running
IO-bound tasks. But I don't have any strong evidence of either case
(the latency increase does correlate with the increase in billed
instances but I can't easily say why your latency increased).

Cheers,
Brian

 Thanks,
 Alan

 --
 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] Problem updating my project to new SDK

2011-12-14 Thread Paul

Hi,

I am trying to update to the new SDK in my project settings. I am not
using Eclipse plugin as it does not work. I use maven for running and
deploying. Even though my xml points to newest sdk, it does not work
and shows standard message about older sdk version. When running
locally it uses correct version, but not always. But when deploying it
shows that I'm using 2-3 versions older SDK. Am I missing something?

-- 
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] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Kenneth

Are you using the old MS datastore or the HR datastore? If you're using MS 
then pretty much anything to do with the datastore is totally random, so 
expect random latency increases which result in higher instance counts and 
thus higher cost to you, randomly of course. Google will not be fixing 
these so move to the hr datastore when you can.

-- 
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/-/PsCn4-PDjvUJ.
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] go language performance:

2011-12-14 Thread Gopal Patel

as per this blog post
http://blog.golang.org/2011/12/from-zero-to-go-launching-on-google.html

he created a doodle on google's homepage and used go lang on app engine.
although that post was about go lang,

it would be nice if someone from google have exact performance data on the
app on app engine. i.e. number of instance, request per second, cost, etc
etc.

-- 
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: Where is the migration tool?

2011-12-14 Thread Kenneth

Star this:

http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=6555 

Get to the tool using this link:

https://appengine.google.com/migrating?app_id=APPID

It might have moved but I don't think so.

-- 
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/-/PPZB_lm4XkkJ.
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: Problem updating my project to new SDK

2011-12-14 Thread Ian Marshall

I believe that the GAE/J SDK files we have in our

  war\WEB-INF\lib

folder dictate to GAE/J which version of the SDK we want to be run in
production. For example: I have

  appengine-api-1.0-sdk-1.5.5.jar

amongst other .jar files, so my app will run under the Java 1.5.5 SDK
when deployed in production. (Yes, I haven't upgraded my build
environment to take the newest SDK into account.

Any help? (Hello fellow Apache Wicket developer!)


On Dec 14, 8:59 am, Paul pgronkiew...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 I am trying to update to the new SDK in my project settings. I am not
 using Eclipse plugin as it does not work. I use maven for running and
 deploying. Even though my xml points to newest sdk, it does not work
 and shows standard message about older sdk version. When running
 locally it uses correct version, but not always. But when deploying it
 shows that I'm using 2-3 versions older SDK. Am I missing something?

-- 
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] Channel API onError codes

2011-12-14 Thread Andrin von Rechenberg

Hey there

We are using the Channel API heavily with mobile devices.

Sometimes the onError JS Callback is called with error code 0.
We are assuming that this is because connection was lost.

If that happens, can we just call channel.open() again?
Would the Google Service ever return code 0?

At the moment our JS implementation is:

function onError(error) {
  if (error.code == 0) {
// No need to get a new token.
channel = new goog.appengine.Channel(channel_id);
channel.open()
  } else {
// Google doesnt like this token anymore
requestNewChannelID();
  }
}

We would be really screwed if Google would ever return code 0.

What are possible error codes google would return?
We also see code -1 quite often?

Cheers,
-Andrin

-- 
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: Too many memory errors with 1.6.1?

2011-12-14 Thread Rohan Chandiramani

F1 Instance(Default) is capped at 128 mb

-- 
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/-/nlb1nOZDGmoJ.
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: App Engine 1.6.1 Released!

Does the emailling problem have been resolved?

2011/12/14 Gopal Patel patelgo...@gmail.com

 http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=6550

 star this issue. which allows options available in online admin console to
 be incorporated in app config file.

 --

 and awesome release. conversation api rocks. does it support image inside
 html ? ( will test it anyhow, but official answer is welcome. :D )


 On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Vivek Puri v...@vivekpuri.com wrote:

 Can someone from AppEngine team acknowledge these questions and answer
 them.


 On Dec 13, 2:46 pm, Vivek Puri v...@vivekpuri.com wrote:
  Ikai,
 
  Looking at my Application setting, i see that the Frontend Instance
  Class is set to F2 by default. I didnt change it to F2. However the
  docs(http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/adminconsole/
  performancesettings.html#Setting_the_Frontend_Instance_Class) say that
  F1 is default . Let me know which statement is correct.

 --
 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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

Just started thinking about this... but now that we are basically paying
for all the datastore reads/writes, and bandwidth separately...

Isn't paying $60 a month for a 600 MHZ instance with only 128 MB ram a
little expensive?

Just taking a quick glance at EBAY, I can buy a 2 GHZ machines with over
a GB of memory all day long.
I can buy BRAND NEW Intel Atom Dual-Core D525 Processor(1.8GHz, 1MB L2
Cache), Support Intel Hyper-Threading technology,
with 1GB memory for ~ $160 all day long
http://www.amazon.com/SHUTTLE-XS35V2-PC-Barebone-System/dp/B004XJCCQO/ref=sr_1_2?m=ATVPDKIKX0DERs=pcie=UTF8qid=1323866320sr=1-2

Call me crazy, but I still have my 1 GHZ pc I bought back in 1999 (12 years
ago) sitting in the garage and I would have a problem giving it away (It
also has a lot more memory than 128 MB ram).

A standard (small) SAME PRICEd Amazon EC2 instance comes with 1.7 GB of
memory and even their FREE micro instance gives you 613 MB of memory.

I understand computers were a lot more expensive back in 1999, but they
have gotten a lot cheaper over the past few years.

Please justify what I am paying for because right now I am trying to
justify upgrading to the F2 instance class for twice the price ($120/month)
just so I can double up and get a whopping 256MB ram!

--
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/-/U8nQaYwxQr8J.
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: Cann't deploy my app to another domain after enable billing

2011-12-14 Thread Drew Spencer

Just wanted to add that I had a number in my app id, changed it and it 
solved the problem. Woo!

Hmm, now why isn't the app recognising me as admin? :S

-- 
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/-/Sa55gR_3wfQJ.
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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

You are paying for the most excellent googly software and most excellent googly
maintenance personnel and most excellent completely free support and vibrant
community on this newsgroup.

If you don't think those are worth the coin, then go use EC2. Don't let the
door hit you on the way out.

I've frankly had enough of the whining about expensive computers.

Think of it this way: google is giving your all this computer time for free!
All you are paying for is the license to use their software, which they bill
based on usage. Just like most commercial software (Oracle, for example,
charges you based on the # of cores you deploy).

Since the computer time is free, it is cheaper than EC2, Rackspace, and your
stinkin' garage. The software is expensive, but that is completely justified.

QED.

-Joshua

On Dec 14, 2011, at 7:50 AM, John wrote:

Just started thinking about this... but now that we are basically paying for
all the datastore reads/writes, and bandwidth separately...

Isn't paying $60 a month for a 600 MHZ instance with only 128 MB ram a little
expensive?

Just taking a quick glance at EBAY, I can buy a 2 GHZ machines with over a
GB of memory all day long.
I can buy BRAND NEW Intel Atom Dual-Core D525 Processor(1.8GHz, 1MB L2
Cache), Support Intel Hyper-Threading technology,
with 1GB memory for ~ $160 all day long
http://www.amazon.com/SHUTTLE-XS35V2-PC-Barebone-System/dp/B004XJCCQO/ref=sr_1_2?m=ATVPDKIKX0DERs=pcie=UTF8qid=1323866320sr=1-2

Call me crazy, but I still have my 1 GHZ pc I bought back in 1999 (12 years
ago) sitting in the garage and I would have a problem giving it away (It also
has a lot more memory than 128 MB ram).

A standard (small) SAME PRICEd Amazon EC2 instance comes with 1.7 GB of
memory and even their FREE micro instance gives you 613 MB of memory.

I understand computers were a lot more expensive back in 1999, but they have
gotten a lot cheaper over the past few years.

Please justify what I am paying for because right now I am trying to justify
upgrading to the F2 instance class for twice the price ($120/month) just so I
can double up and get a whopping 256MB ram!

--
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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread Rishi Arora

That's one way of looking at it. But, if you configure your app properly,
and design your system properly, you pay $60 a month for that 600Mhz
instance only if you actually use it at 100% utilization 24 hours a day,
for the entire month. Here's how I can illustrate that point: My app has a
Max-Idle-Instance=1, but the actual number of active instances is anywhere
between 5 and 30 at any given time. And it responds to changes in demand -
number of requests that have to be served. So, I'm paying for only one
instance, but I'm getting the right to spawn many more. I could easily set
my Max-Idle-Instances to 30 in anticipation for worst case load, but most
of those 30 instances will be idle most of the time, and yet I'd be paying
$60/mo for each of them. In other words, $60/mo buys me the right to use
that instance whenever I want, at a moment's notice (no initialization
latency). I think that's justified, given that it gives you uptime
guarantees, redundancy, scalability, and you can work around it so easily
(by making conscious latency-vs-cost trade-offs). Basically, Google is
incentivizing you to optimize your app so that you have instances running
only if and when you need to.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:50 AM, John sc...@peoplepedia.org wrote:

Just started thinking about this... but now that we are basically paying
for all the datastore reads/writes, and bandwidth separately...

Isn't paying $60 a month for a 600 MHZ instance with only 128 MB ram a
little expensive?

http://www.amazon.com/SHUTTLE-XS35V2-PC-Barebone-System/dp/B004XJCCQO/ref=sr_1_2?m=ATVPDKIKX0DERs=pcie=UTF8qid=1323866320sr=1-2

Call me crazy, but I still have my 1 GHZ pc I bought back in 1999 (12
years ago) sitting in the garage and I would have a problem giving it away
(It also has a lot more memory than 128 MB ram).

A standard (small) SAME PRICEd Amazon EC2 instance comes with 1.7 GB of
memory and even their FREE micro instance gives you 613 MB of memory.

I understand computers were a lot more expensive back in 1999, but they
have gotten a lot cheaper over the past few years.

Please justify what I am paying for because right now I am trying to
justify upgrading to the F2 instance class for twice the price ($120/month)
just so I can double up and get a whopping 256MB ram!

Re: [google-appengine] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

I think there is a legitimate gripe here which is that large-memory
instances are unreasonably expensive.

There's some significant value-add for GAE's whole package -
automatic scaling, memcache, edge caching, deployment system, API
access (although these APIs are generally charged separately).  This
makes the $60/mo for a basic (multithreaded) instance worthwhile.
It's expensive but it's convenient, and most frontend work fits fine
in the F1.  Also it's a little bit of apples/oranges because the GAE #
is heap whereas an Amazon # is VM size, but this is probably less than
a factor of 2 difference.

On the other hand, there are many application components whose primary
requirement is a significant chunk of RAM.  All that Google
infrastructure is nice but it isn't nice enough to warrant a 10X
premium just for a measly 1G of RAM.  And you can't even get more.
Seriously, a cheap amazon standard instance has significantly more
RAM than the most expensive GAE instance... lame.

Consequently, backends are useful as a long-running frontend, but
absolutely useless as an in-memory index.  We're priced into going the
inconvenient route of placing memory indexes in other cloud services.

I've been generally accepting of GAE's recent pricing changes, but the
price of large-memory instances basically means I have to treat that
option as if it doesn't exist.  Which means when Google adds all these
fancy features to support different kinds of instances, from my
perspective, they're wasting their time.  I can't use them until they
make them cheaper.

So here's my plea:  a 256MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
128MB instance, and a 512MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
256MB instance.  The price curve should drop off.  There's a
reasonable premium to pay for running on GAE, but a factor of 10 isn't
it.

Just for comparison... the largest GAE backend, at 1G, costs $460/mo.
A 1.5G linode instance costs $60/mo.  And I can get a 4G linode
instance for $160/mo.  And while it's not exactly an apples/apples
comparison, when I need RAM, the priority of all those other Google
niceties goes down considerably.  And if I needed (say) four 1G
backends, you can absolutely bet that I will go with Linode and pocket
the extra $20k per year.

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.

[google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread JH

I've seen it mentioned here before that Google's RAM is made with
solid gold.  Not sure if it's true or not...

On Dec 14, 6:50 am, John sc...@peoplepedia.org wrote:
 Just started thinking about this... but now that we are basically paying
 for all the datastore reads/writes, and bandwidth separately...

 Isn't paying $60 a month for a 600 MHZ instance with only 128 MB ram a
 little expensive?

 Just taking a quick glance at EBAY, I can buy a  2 GHZ machines with over
 a GB of memory all day long.
 I can buy BRAND NEW Intel Atom Dual-Core D525 Processor(1.8GHz, 1MB L2
 Cache), Support Intel Hyper-Threading technology,
 with 1GB memory for ~ $160 all day 
 longhttp://www.amazon.com/SHUTTLE-XS35V2-PC-Barebone-System/dp/B004XJCCQO...

 Call me crazy, but I still have my 1 GHZ pc I bought back in 1999 (12 years
 ago) sitting in the garage and I would have a problem giving it away (It
 also has a lot more memory than 128 MB ram).

 A standard (small) SAME PRICEd Amazon EC2 instance comes with 1.7 GB of
 memory and even their FREE micro instance gives you 613 MB of memory.

 I understand computers were a lot more expensive back in 1999, but they
 have gotten a lot cheaper over the past few years.

 Please justify what I am paying for because right now I am trying to
 justify upgrading to the F2 instance class for twice the price ($120/month)
 just so I can double up and get a whopping 256MB ram!

-- 
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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread bFlood

exactly jeff, well put.

On Dec 14, 10:36 am, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
 I think there is a legitimate gripe here which is that large-memory
 instances are unreasonably expensive.

 There's some significant value-add for GAE's whole package -
 automatic scaling, memcache, edge caching, deployment system, API
 access (although these APIs are generally charged separately).  This
 makes the $60/mo for a basic (multithreaded) instance worthwhile.
 It's expensive but it's convenient, and most frontend work fits fine
 in the F1.  Also it's a little bit of apples/oranges because the GAE #
 is heap whereas an Amazon # is VM size, but this is probably less than
 a factor of 2 difference.

 On the other hand, there are many application components whose primary
 requirement is a significant chunk of RAM.  All that Google
 infrastructure is nice but it isn't nice enough to warrant a 10X
 premium just for a measly 1G of RAM.  And you can't even get more.
 Seriously, a cheap amazon standard instance has significantly more
 RAM than the most expensive GAE instance... lame.

 Consequently, backends are useful as a long-running frontend, but
 absolutely useless as an in-memory index.  We're priced into going the
 inconvenient route of placing memory indexes in other cloud services.

 I've been generally accepting of GAE's recent pricing changes, but the
 price of large-memory instances basically means I have to treat that
 option as if it doesn't exist.  Which means when Google adds all these
 fancy features to support different kinds of instances, from my
 perspective, they're wasting their time.  I can't use them until they
 make them cheaper.

 So here's my plea:  a 256MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
 128MB instance, and a 512MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
 256MB instance.  The price curve should drop off.  There's a
 reasonable premium to pay for running on GAE, but a factor of 10 isn't
 it.

 Just for comparison... the largest GAE backend, at 1G, costs $460/mo.
 A 1.5G linode instance costs $60/mo.  And I can get a 4G linode
 instance for $160/mo.  And while it's not exactly an apples/apples
 comparison, when I need RAM, the priority of all those other Google
 niceties goes down considerably.  And if I needed (say) four 1G
 backends, you can absolutely bet that I will go with Linode and pocket
 the extra $20k per year.

 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread Rishi Arora

Yeah, more RAM is linearly more costlier, which seems unfair and
un-competitive.  It does make me wonder though, how hard does Google (and
others like linode) try to actually make all that RAM available to you.  In
other words, if you bought an instance with 4G RAM, do they absolutely
guarantee you'll get all 4GB in physical RAM and won't start swapping
because you're probably sharing the server with other apps?

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:56 AM, bFlood bfl...@spatialdatalogic.com wrote:

 exactly jeff, well put.

 On Dec 14, 10:36 am, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
  I think there is a legitimate gripe here which is that large-memory
  instances are unreasonably expensive.
 
  There's some significant value-add for GAE's whole package -
  automatic scaling, memcache, edge caching, deployment system, API
  access (although these APIs are generally charged separately).  This
  makes the $60/mo for a basic (multithreaded) instance worthwhile.
  It's expensive but it's convenient, and most frontend work fits fine
  in the F1.  Also it's a little bit of apples/oranges because the GAE #
  is heap whereas an Amazon # is VM size, but this is probably less than
  a factor of 2 difference.
 
  On the other hand, there are many application components whose primary
  requirement is a significant chunk of RAM.  All that Google
  infrastructure is nice but it isn't nice enough to warrant a 10X
  premium just for a measly 1G of RAM.  And you can't even get more.
  Seriously, a cheap amazon standard instance has significantly more
  RAM than the most expensive GAE instance... lame.
 
  Consequently, backends are useful as a long-running frontend, but
  absolutely useless as an in-memory index.  We're priced into going the
  inconvenient route of placing memory indexes in other cloud services.
 
  I've been generally accepting of GAE's recent pricing changes, but the
  price of large-memory instances basically means I have to treat that
  option as if it doesn't exist.  Which means when Google adds all these
  fancy features to support different kinds of instances, from my
  perspective, they're wasting their time.  I can't use them until they
  make them cheaper.
 
  So here's my plea:  a 256MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
  128MB instance, and a 512MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
  256MB instance.  The price curve should drop off.  There's a
  reasonable premium to pay for running on GAE, but a factor of 10 isn't
  it.
 
  Just for comparison... the largest GAE backend, at 1G, costs $460/mo.
  A 1.5G linode instance costs $60/mo.  And I can get a 4G linode
  instance for $160/mo.  And while it's not exactly an apples/apples
  comparison, when I need RAM, the priority of all those other Google
  niceties goes down considerably.  And if I needed (say) four 1G
  backends, you can absolutely bet that I will go with Linode and pocket
  the extra $20k per year.
 
  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] Re: App Engine 1.6.1 Released!

2011-12-14 Thread Tom Fishman

Nice work!

I have difficulty to find out any information related to  We've added new 
functionality to the Log API that will allow you to read your application's 
logs programmatically.

What does programmatically mean here? Any API?

-- 
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/-/Ov0UXurrWZwJ.
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: App Engine 1.6.1 Released!

2011-12-14 Thread Barry Hunter

Documented here:
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/backends/logserviceapi.html


On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Tom Fishman tom.fish...@dishcrunch.com wrote:
 Nice work!

 I have difficulty to find out any information related to  We've added new
 functionality to the Log API that will allow you to read your application's
 logs programmatically.

 What does programmatically mean here? Any API?

 --
 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/-/Ov0UXurrWZwJ.

 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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

Great points Jeff. Double pricing for double CPU and memory is very
similar to Mac pricing on memory. So, what do new Mac buyers do? They
just get the lowest memory possible and get the cheapest memory deal
from ebay. Unfortunately, we cannot do that here.

On Dec 14, 10:36 am, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
 I think there is a legitimate gripe here which is that large-memory
 instances are unreasonably expensive.

 There's some significant value-add for GAE's whole package -
 automatic scaling, memcache, edge caching, deployment system, API
 access (although these APIs are generally charged separately).  This
 makes the $60/mo for a basic (multithreaded) instance worthwhile.
 It's expensive but it's convenient, and most frontend work fits fine
 in the F1.  Also it's a little bit of apples/oranges because the GAE #
 is heap whereas an Amazon # is VM size, but this is probably less than
 a factor of 2 difference.

 On the other hand, there are many application components whose primary
 requirement is a significant chunk of RAM.  All that Google
 infrastructure is nice but it isn't nice enough to warrant a 10X
 premium just for a measly 1G of RAM.  And you can't even get more.
 Seriously, a cheap amazon standard instance has significantly more
 RAM than the most expensive GAE instance... lame.

 Consequently, backends are useful as a long-running frontend, but
 absolutely useless as an in-memory index.  We're priced into going the
 inconvenient route of placing memory indexes in other cloud services.

 I've been generally accepting of GAE's recent pricing changes, but the
 price of large-memory instances basically means I have to treat that
 option as if it doesn't exist.  Which means when Google adds all these
 fancy features to support different kinds of instances, from my
 perspective, they're wasting their time.  I can't use them until they
 make them cheaper.

 So here's my plea:  a 256MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
 128MB instance, and a 512MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
 256MB instance.  The price curve should drop off.  There's a
 reasonable premium to pay for running on GAE, but a factor of 10 isn't
 it.

 Just for comparison... the largest GAE backend, at 1G, costs $460/mo.
 A 1.5G linode instance costs $60/mo.  And I can get a 4G linode
 instance for $160/mo.  And while it's not exactly an apples/apples
 comparison, when I need RAM, the priority of all those other Google
 niceties goes down considerably.  And if I needed (say) four 1G
 backends, you can absolutely bet that I will go with Linode and pocket
 the extra $20k per year.

 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.

Re: [google-appengine] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Alan Xing

Yes, we are still using the M/S datastore. We feel that we are not offering
mission critical services. These services don't require the HRD level
availability. HRD db read/write/store all costs more. I know we could save
some CPU hours by using Python 2.7 concurrency feature if we move over to
HRD. There is loss and there is gain. Overall, we don't see our cost will
reduce by moving M/S to HRD. That is why we are reluctant to make the move.

I have always wondered why GAE doesn't extend Python 2.7 support to M/S. It
doesn't seem there is any particular technical blocker. Maybe I'm wrong.

In this random latency case, I again wonder why GAE doesn't plan to fix for
M/S servers.

Is the plan to completely phase out M/S servers in some near future?

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Kenneth kennet...@aladdinschools.comwrote:

 Are you using the old MS datastore or the HR datastore? If you're using MS
 then pretty much anything to do with the datastore is totally random, so
 expect random latency increases which result in higher instance counts and
 thus higher cost to you, randomly of course. Google will not be fixing
 these so move to the hr datastore when you can.

  --
 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/-/PsCn4-PDjvUJ.

 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: Too many memory errors with 1.6.1?

Looks like async urlfetch is no longer a good idea.


On Dec 14, 4:51 am, Waleed Abdulla wal...@ninua.com wrote:
 Today I started noticing a lot of instances being killed for exceeding the
 memory limit (see error log attached). I didn't change any app settings!
 This seems to coincide with the latest SDK release. Was the memory size of
 front-end instance reduced with this release?

 Waleed

  GAE_memory_errors.png
 229KViewDownload

-- 
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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

It is very likely that the servers don't have swap. I suspect that when google 
has a 1GB server, they stick just 7 128MB users on there. Remember: google's 
architecture is to have a zillion little computers, and distribute everything.

On Dec 14, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Rishi Arora wrote:

 Yeah, more RAM is linearly more costlier, which seems unfair and 
 un-competitive.  It does make me wonder though, how hard does Google (and 
 others like linode) try to actually make all that RAM available to you.  In 
 other words, if you bought an instance with 4G RAM, do they absolutely 
 guarantee you'll get all 4GB in physical RAM and won't start swapping because 
 you're probably sharing the server with other apps?

-- 
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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Vivek Puri v...@vivekpuri.com wrote:
 Great points Jeff. Double pricing for double CPU and memory is very
 similar to Mac pricing on memory. So, what do new Mac buyers do? They
 just get the lowest memory possible and get the cheapest memory deal
 from ebay. Unfortunately, we cannot do that here.

With other cloud providers and the Remote API you *totally* can do
that here.  It's actually quite easy.  It's just lame.

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.

[google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread mike hershey

I'm with you, this absolutely nuts. I got on board before all this new 
pricing stuff, round 1 new pricing just barely didn't scare me away, but 
this definitely did. I'm getting off app engine ASAP. So much about app 
engine seems like a scam. $1/million database writes, BUT a write is AT 
LEAST 2 writes when they charge you. Why can't we call it what it is? Make 
it $5/million writes and all writes are 1 operation. I know then your not 
rewarding people who remove composite indexes and optimize but it just 
seems dishonest that there are no write operations that use just 1 write. 

Also in my app app engine often spins up idle instances (that I cannot get 
rid of no matter what I configure) and send them exactly 1 request every 15 
minutes so that I'm being charged the whole time for this instance I don't 
want.

I hung around hoping things would get better, but I'm off now.

-- 
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/-/0Wg0TQNTyWYJ.
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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread mike hershey

Also justifying the price with the features of app engine is a horrible 
justification. App engine is a cloud; the whole idea of cloud computing is 
to save money by reducing idle server time. Every other PaaS does the same 
thing a lot cheaper. Lets look at Amazon's elastic beanstalk: 
Service and ResourceUnitCost BreakoutCostAmazon EC2 t1.micro instance1$0.02/hr 
* 24 hours * 30 days$14.40Elastic Load Balancer1$0.025/hr * 24 hours * 30 
days$18.00Elastic Load Balancer Data Processing15GB$0.008/GB * 15GB$ 
0.12Elastic 
Block Store volume8GB$0.10/GB * 8GB$ 0.80S3 Storage for WAR File and Access
1GB$0.14/1GB + $0.01 for1k PUTs, 10k GETs$ 0.15Bandwidth In and 
Out15GBInbound 
is free, 15 GB out * $0.12$ 1.80  *Total Monthly Cost without Free Tier**
$35.27*  *Total Monthly Cost with Free Tier**$0*Way more free, way cheaper. 
Don't get me wrong I'm only ranting because I really want to be able to 
stick with app engine, but When its orders of magnitude more expensive, I 
just can't justify it :( What happened to not being evil?

-- 
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/-/eI14CpnmdDsJ.
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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

No, new Mac buyers get what the kid at the store tells them to get, and never 
open their mac, or buy memory from ebay.

If they were cheapskates, they'd be buying a PC that looks like a Mac on the 
outside, and costs a ton less.

On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Vivek Puri wrote:

 Great points Jeff. Double pricing for double CPU and memory is very
 similar to Mac pricing on memory. So, what do new Mac buyers do? They
 just get the lowest memory possible and get the cheapest memory deal
 from ebay. Unfortunately, we cannot do that here.

-- 
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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

Saving your hard earned $$s doesnt equate to cheapskates. I just want
worth of my $$s that i earned after hours of toiling in front of a
screen. Sometimes 16 hours per day.

On Dec 14, 12:38 pm, Joshua Smith joshuaesm...@charter.net wrote:
 No, new Mac buyers get what the kid at the store tells them to get, and never 
 open their mac, or buy memory from ebay.

 If they were cheapskates, they'd be buying a PC that looks like a Mac on the 
 outside, and costs a ton less.

 On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Vivek Puri wrote:







  Great points Jeff. Double pricing for double CPU and memory is very
  similar to Mac pricing on memory. So, what do new Mac buyers do? They
  just get the lowest memory possible and get the cheapest memory deal
  from ebay. Unfortunately, we cannot do that here.

-- 
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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

I had hoped that AppEngine team will say - all of you guys are on F2
instances that cost $.08. I guess i was naive. So, all of us now by
default end up on these crappy instances that cannot run your code,
and pretty soon will be forced to upgrade to $.16 instances. Its very
similar to a worthless currency. Want to get 1 cup of coffee for 1
million YadaYadaDollars? Oh yeah, bring it on baby! Heck, even iPhone
1 came with same memory.


On Dec 14, 12:32 pm, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Vivek Puri v...@vivekpuri.com wrote:
  Great points Jeff. Double pricing for double CPU and memory is very
  similar to Mac pricing on memory. So, what do new Mac buyers do? They
  just get the lowest memory possible and get the cheapest memory deal
  from ebay. Unfortunately, we cannot do that here.

 With other cloud providers and the Remote API you *totally* can do
 that here.  It's actually quite easy.  It's just lame.

 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.

[google-appengine] Access to bulk data from DB possible?

2011-12-14 Thread Luca de Alfaro

We need to write an app/site whose general usage pattern matches quite well 
AppEngine, except for one thing: the site will be collecting data / logs, 
and every now and then, we need to download bulk data from the database 
tables collecting such data / logs, for offline analysis. 
If we went with a non-appengine solution, we could obviously do this by 
generating e.g. csv files from DB queries or dumps, and then processing the 
files. 
Will it be possible to have the same kind of simple access to bulk data on 
AppEngine?  We can of course build a (web) API that issues DB queries and 
produces csv files for download, but my concerns are:

   1. I remember that there is a limit to how many records can be extracted 
   from a DB using a query (1000?), so that we would have to implement the 
   query with continuation parameters etc -- feasible, but complicating the 
   design.
   2. I worry about the execution time of the query (is it still true that 
   processes taking over 1s are killed?). 

I guess access to log files / bulk data must be a pretty common requirement 
for many apps, so I am hoping someone has good words of advice... 
Many thanks!!

Luca

-- 
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/-/FD50slblUYEJ.
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] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Brian Quinlan bquin...@google.com wrote:

 It is possible that a small increase in datastore latency slowed down
 your application enough that more instances were needed to service
 requests.

I hate to dig up an old subject, but this is exactly the biggest
concern I have with GAE's pricing model.  When Google screws up the
datastore, revenue goes up.

I don't think anyone at Google is so nefarious that they would
deliberately increase datastore latency, but in the long run behavior
follows incentives.  And this seems like a strong incentive *not* to
fix latency issues.  In the made-for-tv movie script, some executive
deliberately lets latency rise in the last few days of the quarter
just to make his revenue targets and get a bonus.  And because of
this, some otherwise-friendly, normal schizophrenic's medication order
fails to process and he goes on a murderous rampage in NYC.  And Sam
Waterston convenes a grand juryok ok, so I've been watching too
much Law And Order.

It would make me a lot happier if time spent waiting for Google
services which we are already paying for (ie, datastore operations)
was subtracted from instance hours we pay for.  What this says is
datastore latency is Google's problem, not my problem.  It means that
GAE engineers will be always be working extra hard to keep latency
down - because low latency improves Google's bottom line rather than
inflating it.

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.

[google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

Looking at Heroku, they offer instance for $.05 with 512mb RAM. Dont
see any wording asking for minimum hours of commitment. Besides that,
this minimum hours of commitment is such a pain. As i discovered, you
cannot increase/decrease hours at will. Any changes you make today, it
does not come into effect till next week. All these changes are
turning out to be very un-Google, and makes me feel i am dealing with
Verizon.

-- 
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: Frontend Instance Class (Default F1? 128MB?) All my instances have been running around 256MB

2011-12-14 Thread Jon McAlister

Yes, F1 is what all frontend instances were using prior to the 1.6.1 release.

Scott, the issue with your instances dashboard is that our accounting
and enforcement of java memory is different than for python, and this
implementation detail is bleeding through the interface here.

Specifically, for java, the memory limit
(http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/config/backends.html#Instance_Classes)
is what we use as the jvm heap size. However, here the admin console
is listing the process memory usage. These two are not the same thing.
The java process size is usually higher than the jvm heap size, but
usually by a small and relatively stable amount (e.g. 10%). So, in
this case, the jvm heap size is 128MB, and the process size is larger
(and that is what is listed on the page). When you choose a larger
instance class, new instances will be configured with larger jvm heap
sizes.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Per per.fragem...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm confused by these changes too. Although I'm happy to have choice
 (pay more for more speed sounds awesome) this leaves an odd
 aftertaste  After all the communication issues around the recent
 pricing changes, shouldn't it be quite obvious that people will ask
 you about the details anyway? Wouldn't it help to spend a couple
 minutes upfront, explaining this change/new feature better? Surely you
 have spent many hours working on the implementation, why not share
 some additional insight?

 By default, all applications use the basic frontend instance setting
 of 128MB memory and  600MHz CPU.

 So, if F1 is what we've been using the past months, why don't you just
 say so.  And if it happened to be F2, then people will find out
 eventually, and you should say to too.

 I can see a mysterious drop in performance of my application since the
 22nd of November. I have not analysed it yet (it only occurred to me
 now, since I was busy), but it would help a lot if you'd take the
 guesswork out of these announcements -- because otherwise I am
 somewhat tempted to believe that we've been on something similar to F2
 and will now have to pay more to achieve the same old performance.
 Please tell me it's not like this, and I'll shut up instantly :)

 Cheers,
 Per



 On Dec 14, 12:03 pm, Scott Murphy sc...@pixoto.com wrote:
 Hi, I am confused.  Did the default used to be F2?  All my instances run 
 128MB of ram. How is this possible?  Does this mean that part of the memory
 is swapped to disk?  If I choose a larger instance class say (F4), will my
 Java Heap size automatically change to allow up to 512MB heap? Or is this
 extra memory not usable by the app?

 0..0 ms108112:44:46170.1 MBytes[image: Resident Icon]Resident0..0 ms
 27701 day, 21:07:27190.0 MBytes[image: Resident Icon]Resident0.0171905.0 ms
 14101 day, 5:35:31182.7 MBytes[image: Resident Icon]Resident0.4331114.4 ms
 402102:49:43239.3 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0..0 
 ms109701:00:15203.4
 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0..0 ms12500:12:01197.4 MBytes[image:
 Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.2331295.7 ms48500:22:12192.7 MBytes[image: Dynamic
 Icon]Dynamic0.4671081.0 ms696734:08:09245.1 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]
 Dynamic0.3831486.6 ms367314:03:36243.4 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic
 0..0 ms641304:15:35243.5 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.0503124.3
 ms600:02:07149.5 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.05030326.0 
 ms200:00:40136.2
 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.5671189.9 ms551503:33:30244.8 
 MBytes[image:
 Dynamic Icon]Dynamic

 --
 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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread pdknsk

You can get 8GB RAM for less than $40 now. Google probably pays $20.

-- 
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: Frontend Instance Class (Default F1? 128MB?) All my instances have been running around 256MB

2011-12-14 Thread Jon McAlister

Sorry, that number 10% was chosen arbitrarily and not based on hard
data. The point was just that there is overhead but that is not
something we are charging for. The instance class size for java
determines the jvm heap size.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Jon McAlister jon...@google.com wrote:
 Yes, F1 is what all frontend instances were using prior to the 1.6.1 release.

 Scott, the issue with your instances dashboard is that our accounting
 and enforcement of java memory is different than for python, and this
 implementation detail is bleeding through the interface here.

 Specifically, for java, the memory limit
 (http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/config/backends.html#Instance_Classes)
 is what we use as the jvm heap size. However, here the admin console
 is listing the process memory usage. These two are not the same thing.
 The java process size is usually higher than the jvm heap size, but
 usually by a small and relatively stable amount (e.g. 10%). So, in
 this case, the jvm heap size is 128MB, and the process size is larger
 (and that is what is listed on the page). When you choose a larger
 instance class, new instances will be configured with larger jvm heap
 sizes.

 On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Per per.fragem...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm confused by these changes too. Although I'm happy to have choice
 (pay more for more speed sounds awesome) this leaves an odd
 aftertaste  After all the communication issues around the recent
 pricing changes, shouldn't it be quite obvious that people will ask
 you about the details anyway? Wouldn't it help to spend a couple
 minutes upfront, explaining this change/new feature better? Surely you
 have spent many hours working on the implementation, why not share
 some additional insight?

 By default, all applications use the basic frontend instance setting
 of 128MB memory and  600MHz CPU.

 So, if F1 is what we've been using the past months, why don't you just
 say so.  And if it happened to be F2, then people will find out
 eventually, and you should say to too.

 I can see a mysterious drop in performance of my application since the
 22nd of November. I have not analysed it yet (it only occurred to me
 now, since I was busy), but it would help a lot if you'd take the
 guesswork out of these announcements -- because otherwise I am
 somewhat tempted to believe that we've been on something similar to F2
 and will now have to pay more to achieve the same old performance.
 Please tell me it's not like this, and I'll shut up instantly :)

 Cheers,
 Per



 On Dec 14, 12:03 pm, Scott Murphy sc...@pixoto.com wrote:
 Hi, I am confused.  Did the default used to be F2?  All my instances run 
 128MB of ram. How is this possible?  Does this mean that part of the memory
 is swapped to disk?  If I choose a larger instance class say (F4), will my
 Java Heap size automatically change to allow up to 512MB heap? Or is this
 extra memory not usable by the app?

 0..0 ms108112:44:46170.1 MBytes[image: Resident Icon]Resident0..0 ms
 27701 day, 21:07:27190.0 MBytes[image: Resident Icon]Resident0.0171905.0 ms
 14101 day, 5:35:31182.7 MBytes[image: Resident Icon]Resident0.4331114.4 ms
 402102:49:43239.3 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0..0 
 ms109701:00:15203.4
 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0..0 ms12500:12:01197.4 MBytes[image:
 Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.2331295.7 ms48500:22:12192.7 MBytes[image: Dynamic
 Icon]Dynamic0.4671081.0 ms696734:08:09245.1 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]
 Dynamic0.3831486.6 ms367314:03:36243.4 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic
 0..0 ms641304:15:35243.5 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.0503124.3
 ms600:02:07149.5 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.05030326.0 
 ms200:00:40136.2
 MBytes[image: Dynamic Icon]Dynamic0.5671189.9 ms551503:33:30244.8 
 MBytes[image:
 Dynamic Icon]Dynamic

 --
 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] Effective memcache - Caching frequently fetched entities

Hi, im planning to implement memcache on my application,

i found this link
http://code.google.com/intl/en/appengine/articles/scaling/memcache.html#related

but there arent any sample how to Cache frequently fetched entities

i have googled it but didnt found any sample or source to learn how to do
it.

Do u guys know any link to assist me? im developing using Java

thx

-- 
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] Effective memcache - Caching frequently fetched entities

You didn't mention which datastore API you are using.  It's different
for all of them.

If you're using the low-level API (or an API based on the low-level
API), you can use this:

http://code.google.com/p/objectify-appengine/wiki/MemcacheStandalone

I don't recommend trying to roll your own.  It's actually quite tricky
to get right without opening yourself up to synchronization issues
under contention.

Jeff

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Leandro Rezende
leandro.reze...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi, im planning to implement memcache on my application,

 i found this link
 http://code.google.com/intl/en/appengine/articles/scaling/memcache.html#related

 but there arent any sample how to Cache frequently fetched entities

 i have googled it but didnt found any sample or source to learn how to do
 it.

 Do u guys know any link to assist me? im developing using Java

 thx

 --
 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.



-- 
We are the 20%

-- 
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] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Brian Quinlan

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Alan Xing alanx...@gmail.com wrote:
 Yes, we are still using the M/S datastore. We feel that we are not offering
 mission critical services. These services don't require the HRD level
 availability. HRD db read/write/store all costs more.

What do you mean? The dollar cost for HRD is the same as MS.

I know we could save
 some CPU hours by using Python 2.7 concurrency feature if we move over to
 HRD. There is loss and there is gain. Overall, we don't see our cost will
 reduce by moving M/S to HRD. That is why we are reluctant to make the move.

 I have always wondered why GAE doesn't extend Python 2.7 support to M/S. It
 doesn't seem there is any particular technical blocker. Maybe I'm wrong.

 In this random latency case, I again wonder why GAE doesn't plan to fix for
 M/S servers.

We do have a fix - the HRD :-) Seriously, to make MS more consistent
and reliable, you'd need to synchronously replicate the data across
machines and data centers and that is exactly what MRD.

Cheers,
Brian


 Is the plan to completely phase out M/S servers in some near future?

 On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Kenneth kennet...@aladdinschools.com
 wrote:

 Are you using the old MS datastore or the HR datastore? If you're using MS
 then pretty much anything to do with the datastore is totally random, so
 expect random latency increases which result in higher instance counts and
 thus higher cost to you, randomly of course. Google will not be fixing these
 so move to the hr datastore when you can.

 --
 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/-/PsCn4-PDjvUJ.

 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] Effective memcache - Caching frequently fetched entities

thx Jeff, im using Datanucleus JDO

2011/12/14 Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org

 You didn't mention which datastore API you are using.  It's different
 for all of them.

 If you're using the low-level API (or an API based on the low-level
 API), you can use this:

 http://code.google.com/p/objectify-appengine/wiki/MemcacheStandalone

 I don't recommend trying to roll your own.  It's actually quite tricky
 to get right without opening yourself up to synchronization issues
 under contention.

 Jeff

 On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Leandro Rezende
 leandro.reze...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi, im planning to implement memcache on my application,
 
  i found this link
 
 http://code.google.com/intl/en/appengine/articles/scaling/memcache.html#related
 
  but there arent any sample how to Cache frequently fetched entities
 
  i have googled it but didnt found any sample or source to learn how to do
  it.
 
  Do u guys know any link to assist me? im developing using Java
 
  thx
 
  --
  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.



 --
 We are the 20%

 --
 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] Many short request allowed?

2011-12-14 Thread Donnerdose

Hallo,

I would really like to use GAE for a little game server. It shouldn't
be real-time but just for a round-based game. However, as GAE does not
support any permanent connections, the only possibility to allow for
notifications of the clients for news would be to make many requests
like 60-120 per minute for updates. For example, if I programmed a
little chess program and it is white's turn, black had to ask the
server permanently on whether white did make a move (P2P wouldn't be
nice as I want the user to avoid acting as a server).

I could also use channels but I think that the manipulation hazard is
far higher when using javascript than e.g. using a normal java applet,
so that I would rather use a normal java applet.

So, is it allowed to make many requests towards a GAE server or would
that be considered as flooding or abusing? Are there any new
techniques for client notification which I might not have read about
so far?

Thank you very much!
Michael

-- 
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] Billing Department?

2011-12-14 Thread RayC

How do I contact billing to discuss bills I'm receiving?

I have limits set to $0.01 per day, but every week or so I get a bill
for $2.10 which immediately gets reversed according to the billing
history screen on the app engine dashboard, but my credit card still
gets billed and never shows a refund.

What do I do?

-- 
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] Billing Department?

2011-12-14 Thread Andreas

you have billing enabled so your app costs 9$/month

the $0.01 is the cap you set for over quota resources.


On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:04 PM, RayC wrote:

 How do I contact billing to discuss bills I'm receiving?
 
 I have limits set to $0.01 per day, but every week or so I get a bill
 for $2.10 which immediately gets reversed according to the billing
 history screen on the app engine dashboard, but my credit card still
 gets billed and never shows a refund.
 
 What do I do?
 
 -- 
 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] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Kenneth

HRD is great and all (or at least it couldn't worse than MS), I'm going to 
try and take the leap this weekend, but you haven't provided us with a 
complete migration tool, which sucks. There would be a lot 
more credibility if you did, you could even announce a sunset period for MS 
and save a few SREs high bleed pressure.


-- 
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/-/BbxbF2Ioq7oJ.
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] Billing Department?

2011-12-14 Thread Andreas

if you want a free app disable billing and there will be no charge.

On Dec 14, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Andreas wrote:

 you have billing enabled so your app costs 9$/month
 
 the $0.01 is the cap you set for over quota resources.
 
 
 On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:04 PM, RayC wrote:
 
 How do I contact billing to discuss bills I'm receiving?
 
 I have limits set to $0.01 per day, but every week or so I get a bill
 for $2.10 which immediately gets reversed according to the billing
 history screen on the app engine dashboard, but my credit card still
 gets billed and never shows a refund.
 
 What do I do?
 
 -- 
 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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

When it comes to writes I call it the times two phenomenon. I have NO
IDEA why you can't do anything that is not 2 writes???

e.g.
If you have a very simple Entity with 5 properties (none set to the NON
default status of Unindexed) and you save it, it is 12 writes.

Key http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?kind=Testorder=__key__Write
OpsID/Namehttp://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?kind=Testorder=__key__
firstNamehttp://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?kind=Testorder=firstName
four http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?kind=Testorder=four
lastNamehttp://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?kind=Testorder=lastName
six
http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?kind=Testorder=sixthreehttp://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?kind=Testorder=three
agtwaXhvdG8tbGl2ZXILCxIEVGVzdBiNAQw12141JoedoorBobsticksfree

So you get slammed with 12 writes. Each property is 2 writes.

Here is a PropertyLess Entity
Keyhttp://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?kind=PropertyLessorder=-__key__Write

OpsID/Namehttp://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?kind=PropertyLessorder=-__key__
agtwaXhvdG8tbGl2ZXITCxIMUHJvcGVydHlMZXNzGI4BDA2142

2 writes. Who needs properties anyhow? That would mean you could query on
them. Queries return results, results are reads. Reads cost money.

Oh wait, that is what memcache is for... wait a sec, memcache took down my
whole site Monday from MemcacheServiceExceptions

http://code.google.com/status/appengine/detail/memcache/2011/12/12#ae-trust-detail-memcache-get-latency

Also in my app app engine often spins up idle instances (that I cannot get
rid of no matter what I configure) and send them exactly 1 request every 15
minutes so that I'm being charged the whole time for this instance I don't
want.

This happens to me also... Why is it if you have 6 instances, 2 of them get
most of the requests 3 of them get none and occasionally App Engine will
start up a 7th instance while the idle 3 still get nothing?

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE what App Engine stands for and I have all the
respect in the world for the App Engine team. BUT, I have been through SO
much grief ranging from random app engine problems to having to migrate to
an HR datastore to dramatic increases in pricing. When I signed up for
this (old pricing), I thought the pricing would eventually get better
(almost like gmail and disk space), but instead it went the opposite. Had
my experience been perfect here and my app had run flawlessly all this
time, I would have had no gripes and shut up and spent the extra cash
without blinking. But, instead I have experienced hair loosing problems,
massive variations in performance and got stuck with a much larger bill.

--
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/-/DElz4NPSc8oJ.
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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

If computer time is free, what is up with the exponential memory costs?

-- 
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/-/8QpGUUoyNJwJ.
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: Frontend Instance Class (Default F1? 128MB?) All my instances have been running around 256MB

2011-12-14 Thread Scott Murphy

Thanks for clearing that up Jon! I was getting scared for a minute but it 
is nice to know my app could run in a 128 MB heap :)

-- 
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/-/sTgMokv5KC0J.
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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

Memory is a proxy for a fractional computer.

Also, go look up exponential. You are using it wrong.

On Dec 14, 2011, at 4:02 PM, John wrote:

 If computer time is free, what is up with the exponential memory costs?
 
 -- 
 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/-/8QpGUUoyNJwJ.
 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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

Using it wrong?  Let's see.

My first choice is F1 instance with 128 MB ram  = .08/hr
If I want more, my next available option is F2 with 256 MB ram = .16/hr
If I want more, my only next available option is F4 with 512 MB ram = .32/hr

Each available choice is double the cost of the previous one hmmm.

-- 
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/-/8Lsl5yaYtecJ.
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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread André Pankraz

the main problem with heroku seems to be that they start with a minimum of 
200$ a month for the database - not very open source friendly?! it pays off 
if you use 1 TB data. Maybe I miss cheaper options there.

-- 
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/-/NQ8l_6H79ZgJ.
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] Many short request allowed?

This wouldn't be flooding the server, but to serve these requests you may
need a large number of live instances that might drive up costs.

I'd run a quick test to see if this'll work for your scheme. I suspect most
low latency games will work well (turn based games), but a first person
shooter might not (I've seen a demo to the contrary, of course).

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Donnerdose donnerd...@googlemail.comwrote:

 Hallo,

 I would really like to use GAE for a little game server. It shouldn't
 be real-time but just for a round-based game. However, as GAE does not
 support any permanent connections, the only possibility to allow for
 notifications of the clients for news would be to make many requests
 like 60-120 per minute for updates. For example, if I programmed a
 little chess program and it is white's turn, black had to ask the
 server permanently on whether white did make a move (P2P wouldn't be
 nice as I want the user to avoid acting as a server).

 I could also use channels but I think that the manipulation hazard is
 far higher when using javascript than e.g. using a normal java applet,
 so that I would rather use a normal java applet.

 So, is it allowed to make many requests towards a GAE server or would
 that be considered as flooding or abusing? Are there any new
 techniques for client notification which I might not have read about
 so far?

 Thank you very much!
 Michael

 --
 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] Effective memcache - Caching frequently fetched entities

Which part do you need help on? Have you used caching before in the past?

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Leandro Rezende leandro.reze...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 thx Jeff, im using Datanucleus JDO


 2011/12/14 Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org

 You didn't mention which datastore API you are using.  It's different
 for all of them.

 If you're using the low-level API (or an API based on the low-level
 API), you can use this:

 http://code.google.com/p/objectify-appengine/wiki/MemcacheStandalone

 I don't recommend trying to roll your own.  It's actually quite tricky
 to get right without opening yourself up to synchronization issues
 under contention.

 Jeff

 On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Leandro Rezende
 leandro.reze...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi, im planning to implement memcache on my application,
 
  i found this link
 
 http://code.google.com/intl/en/appengine/articles/scaling/memcache.html#related
 
  but there arent any sample how to Cache frequently fetched entities
 
  i have googled it but didnt found any sample or source to learn how to
 do
  it.
 
  Do u guys know any link to assist me? im developing using Java
 
  thx
 
  --
  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.



 --
 We are the 20%

 --
 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] Access to bulk data from DB possible?

1. This limit is gone, but obviously the time it takes to do a query scales
with the result set. The design is actually quite easy: get back a cursor,
pass the cursor on the next iteration. I don't trivially say things are
easy; I err on the side of saying something is too complex.

2. Nope, not anymore.

You might want to look into something like appengine-mapreduce. In theory
you should be able to aggregate large numbers of entities into a few
blobstore (App Engine files API) entities:

http://code.google.com/p/appengine-mapreduce/

I say in theory because this tool is still experimental. We have every
intention of making this tool a core part of the platform but it isn't
there yet. Still, many developers are using this in production now for
offline computation:

http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2010/08/practical-report-generation-on-app.html

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Luca de Alfaro luca.de.alf...@gmail.comwrote:

 We need to write an app/site whose general usage pattern matches quite
 well AppEngine, except for one thing: the site will be collecting data /
 logs, and every now and then, we need to download bulk data from the
 database tables collecting such data / logs, for offline analysis.
 If we went with a non-appengine solution, we could obviously do this by
 generating e.g. csv files from DB queries or dumps, and then processing the
 files.
 Will it be possible to have the same kind of simple access to bulk data on
 AppEngine?  We can of course build a (web) API that issues DB queries and
 produces csv files for download, but my concerns are:

1. I remember that there is a limit to how many records can be
extracted from a DB using a query (1000?), so that we would have to
implement the query with continuation parameters etc -- feasible, but
complicating the design.
2. I worry about the execution time of the query (is it still true
that processes taking over 1s are killed?).

 I guess access to log files / bulk data must be a pretty common
 requirement for many apps, so I am hoping someone has good words of
 advice...
 Many thanks!!

 Luca

 --
 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/-/FD50slblUYEJ.
 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] 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Brian Quinlan

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Alan Xing alanx...@gmail.com wrote:
 The dollar cost of HRD and MS are the same? It was a surprise for me. I
 always had the impression HRD costed way more. Now I could not find that
 document except from Google search engine snapshot. As of Dec 10, 2011, GAE
 doc still mentioned HRD uses approximately three times the storage and CPU
 cost of the master/slave option. Please see attached snapshot.

 Regardless, I'm very happy to know that HRD is not costing more than MS any
 more. I will seriously think about to migrate to HRD soon.

When HRD was launched it did cost 3x more than MS (since it costs
Google at least 3x more to do the replication). But the pricing has
later adjusted to be the same as MS.

Cheers,
Brian

 As of this moment today, we are still seeing way much higher front end
 instance hours than I would have expected before yesterday's spike. I'm not
 convinced by the explanations I have received so far. I'd think it is good
 to be transparent about pricing. Choosing a platform is a long term
 relationship, transparency can help stabilize the relationship.


 On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Brian Quinlan bquin...@google.com wrote:

 On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Alan Xing alanx...@gmail.com wrote:
  Yes, we are still using the M/S datastore. We feel that we are not
  offering
  mission critical services. These services don't require the HRD level
  availability. HRD db read/write/store all costs more.

 What do you mean? The dollar cost for HRD is the same as MS.

 I know we could save
  some CPU hours by using Python 2.7 concurrency feature if we move over
  to
  HRD. There is loss and there is gain. Overall, we don't see our cost
  will
  reduce by moving M/S to HRD. That is why we are reluctant to make the
  move.
 
  I have always wondered why GAE doesn't extend Python 2.7 support to M/S.
  It
  doesn't seem there is any particular technical blocker. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
  In this random latency case, I again wonder why GAE doesn't plan to fix
  for
  M/S servers.

 We do have a fix - the HRD :-) Seriously, to make MS more consistent
 and reliable, you'd need to synchronously replicate the data across
 machines and data centers and that is exactly what MRD.

 Cheers,
 Brian

 
  Is the plan to completely phase out M/S servers in some near future?
 
  On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Kenneth kennet...@aladdinschools.com
  wrote:
 
  Are you using the old MS datastore or the HR datastore? If you're using
  MS
  then pretty much anything to do with the datastore is totally random,
  so
  expect random latency increases which result in higher instance counts
  and
  thus higher cost to you, randomly of course. Google will not be fixing
  these
  so move to the hr datastore when you can.
 
  --
  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/-/PsCn4-PDjvUJ.
 
  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.


 --
 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: Cann't deploy my app to another domain after enable billing

Did you figure this one out?

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Drew Spencer slugmand...@gmail.com wrote:

 Just wanted to add that I had a number in my app id, changed it and it
 solved the problem. Woo!

 Hmm, now why isn't the app recognising me as admin? :S

 --
 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/-/Sa55gR_3wfQJ.
 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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

So cost = K * size. That's linear, also called Arithmetic growth.  (It's not 
even geometric growth, which is what most people mean when they say 
exponential growth.)

On Dec 14, 2011, at 4:20 PM, John wrote:

 Using it wrong?  Let's see.
 
 My first choice is F1 instance with 128 MB ram  = .08/hr
 If I want more, my next available option is F2 with 256 MB ram = .16/hr
 If I want more, my only next available option is F4 with 512 MB ram = .32/hr
 
 Each available choice is double the cost of the previous one hmmm.
 
 -- 
 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/-/8Lsl5yaYtecJ.
 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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread Brandon Wirtz

People are hung up on this 600mhz 128m Ram thing.  If you are using the
API’s you are likely barely touching your CPU, and if you are using MemCache
and Datastore most the time you aren’t using ram.

 

GAE is not the choice for Folding/Unfolding proteins or searching for ET.
But if you are building Data Intense apps you can’t touch it on price.

 

 

From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of André Pankraz
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 1:21 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: [google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600
MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

 

the main problem with heroku seems to be that they start with a minimum of
200$ a month for the database - not very open source friendly?! it pays off
if you use 1 TB data. Maybe I miss cheaper options there.

-- 
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/-/NQ8l_6H79ZgJ.
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] Effective memcache - Caching frequently fetched entities

no i never used, im trying to learn about it to reduce the Datastore
reading operation from my application.

my application is small and its consuming too much quota. probably i will
need to denormalize more, but using cache i hope to save some reads
operation

2011/12/14 Ikai Lan (Google) ika...@google.com

 Which part do you need help on? Have you used caching before in the past?

 --
 Ikai Lan
 Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
 plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



 On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Leandro Rezende 
 leandro.reze...@gmail.com wrote:

 thx Jeff, im using Datanucleus JDO


 2011/12/14 Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org

 You didn't mention which datastore API you are using.  It's different
 for all of them.

 If you're using the low-level API (or an API based on the low-level
 API), you can use this:

 http://code.google.com/p/objectify-appengine/wiki/MemcacheStandalone

 I don't recommend trying to roll your own.  It's actually quite tricky
 to get right without opening yourself up to synchronization issues
 under contention.

 Jeff

 On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Leandro Rezende
 leandro.reze...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi, im planning to implement memcache on my application,
 
  i found this link
 
 http://code.google.com/intl/en/appengine/articles/scaling/memcache.html#related
 
  but there arent any sample how to Cache frequently fetched entities
 
  i have googled it but didnt found any sample or source to learn how to
 do
  it.
 
  Do u guys know any link to assist me? im developing using Java
 
  thx
 
  --
  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.



 --
 We are the 20%

 --
 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.


-- 
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: Cann't deploy my app to another domain after enable billing

2011-12-14 Thread Drew Spencer

I did! And by the time I found the thread I posted about it: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-appengine-java/xMaLyu4MqO0 you 
already beat me to it!

It's a weird one having two accounts, not sure if I should deploy to my 
personal account or my apps one, but hey ho, guess it doesn't matter really 
- I'm collaborating with myself :)

Cheers though Ikai. :)

-- 
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/-/nlh6ri711OMJ.
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] Need Help: Can't access app engine control for app I'm getting charged for.

Christian, I'll reply to you off list to try to sort this out.

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Christian glo...@gmail.com wrote:

 The app 'spiritworksyoga' is a little site I threw together for my mom,
 but I no longer seem to be able to access it via the control panel. How do
 I find out which of my google accounts has control over this app? I've
 tried the small handful I use for projects and non seem to work.

 --
 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/-/wtSJdQ-RGJYJ.
 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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread André Pankraz

so if we follow your image that hardware is free and we pay for the 
software licence this is quite similar to Oracles paying for cores. we 
will see how good this K * size will work in the cloud environment ;)
sticking to your example: Oracle provides substantial sales discount that 
raises with the lump sum price. 

-- 
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/-/LGBgz84CWrgJ.
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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread mike hershey

One last thing that is incredibly evil: paying customers do have an SLA, 
BUT if the SLA is not met its your responsibility to complain to Google to 
get credit towards your next month bill, and they don't have a metric of 
monthly uptime anywhere. To be able to claim against the SLA, I have to 
keep my own metrics of uptime.

Way to really stand behind your product Google. 

And if its not met:

   Monthly Uptime PercentagePercentage of monthly bill credited to future 
   monthly bills of Customer99.00% –  99.95%10%95.00% –  99.00%25% 95.00%
   50%
   
   
   

   But thats ok I'm sure they tell you who to contact:


   To notify Google of SLA Financial Credit eligibility, please see the 
   Documentation. 

- http://code.google.com/appengine/sla.html

I couldn't even imagine how mad I would be if my service was only up 95% of 
the time, and they only refunded 50% of my costs. 


   Its really just embarrassing. Get your shit together, get a real SLA 
   that allows you to stand behind your product, lower the prices, and stop 
   being evil. 

-- 
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/-/oCbbrmOlhtgJ.
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] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

As does google. Witness enterprise accounts (eliminating the $9 fees) and 
pre-paid instances. You gotta get pretty big before you start seeing discounts 
from any vendor.

On Dec 14, 2011, at 4:50 PM, André Pankraz wrote:

 so if we follow your image that hardware is free and we pay for the software 
 licence this is quite similar to Oracles paying for cores. we will see how 
 good this K * size will work in the cloud environment ;)
 sticking to your example: Oracle provides substantial sales discount that 
 raises with the lump sum price. 
 
 -- 
 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/-/LGBgz84CWrgJ.
 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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
 But if you are building Data Intense apps you can’t touch it on price.

Only if you can use the indexes provided.  If you need a slightly
different index (say, a spatial index), you're forced to maintain it
in a third-party cloud.  This was one of the original design goals for
Backends; I recall one of Ikai's posts describing a fulltext search
index as a use case.  And yet backends are totally useless as index
repositories because they're priced 10X what it would cost to put the
index *anywhere* else.

1) You can't use backends as fast indexes because they are too expensive.
2) You can't use backends as persistent state because they aren't
reliable enough.

What can you use them for?  They let you execute a single task longer
than 10minutes.  Pretty weak sauce.  They could have solved that
problem just by enabling long-running frontend requests url-by-url in
the app.yaml - that wouldn't require me to split my code and create
separate deployment modules.

I love Appengine, but Backends are a non-feature just like Email.  It
would be better if Google engineers didn't waste their time creating
features nobody can use.

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.

[google-appengine] Re: 40%+ increase of frontend instance hours over previous day

2011-12-14 Thread Greg

@Alan and @Kenneth - I too was hesitant about moving to the HRD, but I
took the plunge five months ago. It's basically how the datastore
should be - I haven't seen ANY downtime, latency is much more
predictable, it just works. You're going to love it, trust me.

HRD is NOT for mission critical only, it is for any app that you
care about at all. The only use for MS is now old apps that aren't
used - everything else should be migrated as a matter of the highest
priority.

Google haven't deprecated MS, probably to avoid yet another PR
backlash. But I'm sure privately they want to switch everyone over to
HRD as soon as possible, because it causes so many support headaches.
And it's not just Google - I'm sure you'll have noticed that you get
very little  help from this group as soon as you admit you use MS.
Basically if you don't care enough about your app to migrate it, why
should we care about it either?

So to sum up, MIGRATE NOW! Make sure you understand eventual
consistency (see 
http://neogregious.blogspot.com/2011/04/migrating-app-to-high-replication.html
and 
http://neogregious.blogspot.com/2011/06/high-replication-migration-lessons.html),
and then GO FOR IT!

-- 
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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

2011-12-14 Thread Brandon Wirtz

I have a spatial Index running on GAE using Calculated Tessellations as
indexed values.  Based on a talk given by someone at Google About How they
optimized map searches for doing with in radius searches.

Sure we can't all be the genius architect I am (or possibly as good at
dissecting other people's information) but you trade what you store and how
you store it, in order to optimize for the platform.

But again it always comes back to people trying to make GAE act like other
platforms, It isn't. Is it better? Guess that depends on if you Like Ruby's
Philosophy of there are 10 ways to do everything, and not Wrong answers. Or
Python's There is only one way to do something and that way will be right.

GAE is about understanding what you need to do, and optimizing for the way
GAE wants you to do it.  To Be honest I have never worked in a platform so
Rigid in architecture, or so limitless in potential.  

I think creative problem solvers don't thrive on GAE. The rigidity stifles
them as they attempt to solve problems that don't need to be solved.  And
Architects thrive because the Lego Pieces to play with are so abundant.




-Original Message-
From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:11 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a
600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
 But if you are building Data Intense apps you can't touch it on price.

Only if you can use the indexes provided.  If you need a slightly different
index (say, a spatial index), you're forced to maintain it in a third-party
cloud.  This was one of the original design goals for Backends; I recall one
of Ikai's posts describing a fulltext search index as a use case.  And yet
backends are totally useless as index repositories because they're priced
10X what it would cost to put the index *anywhere* else.

1) You can't use backends as fast indexes because they are too expensive.
2) You can't use backends as persistent state because they aren't reliable
enough.

What can you use them for?  They let you execute a single task longer than
10minutes.  Pretty weak sauce.  They could have solved that problem just by
enabling long-running frontend requests url-by-url in the app.yaml - that
wouldn't require me to split my code and create separate deployment modules.

I love Appengine, but Backends are a non-feature just like Email.  It would
be better if Google engineers didn't waste their time creating features
nobody can use.

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.

Re: [google-appengine] Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE

As I stated Each available choice is double the cost of the previous one. 
 That is exponential.  Am I missing something here??

e.g. 2^n where i is the index of the instance choice (0,1,2,...)

therefore

cost =  2^n * .08

Based on that, if an F8 were to be available, a 1024MB instance would be 
2^3 *.08 = .64/hr

-- 
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/-/YsLOg3QQlAoJ.
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: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE