[google-appengine] Deployment failure with Python SDK 1.6.1
Hey Everyone, I'm seeing a strange deployment error when uploading my app via "appcfg.py update -V test ." with Python SDK 1.6.1 and Python 2.7.2+ on Ubuntu: Cloning 212 static files. Cloned 100 files. Cloned 200 files. Cloning 25 application files. Rolling back the update. Error 400: --- begin server output --- The POST body must be a newline delimited list of "path|hash" pairs. --- end server output --- Thoughts? Thanks! Aaron -- 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/-/uWP7nwpnnzQJ. 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] Not able to start Launcher on Ubuntu Natty
- With Python 2.7, I was able to start ./GoogleAppEngineLauncher.py but could not create a project as it throwed a error saying, cannot copy templates --- After reading some link found that, SDK supports python 2.5 -- Installed Pyton 2.5.2 --- tried installing python-wxgtk2.5 python-wxtools wx2.5-i18n -- Not successful Can some help me -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
Re: [google-appengine] How to think about the Datastore
Thanks Ikai. I'll probably go for your suggestion, and try to cache the indexes in MemCache. There are different kinds of searches: 1. String search in the spoken language translations of the signs. Most often that is start-of-string, but it could also be end or part of string. There are also three kinds of "translations" that must be kept track of. Sometimes searchers should be restricted to one of these kinds. 2. ID search. Take a sign id, return the sign. I probably won't need a separate index for this. 3. Each sign is transcribed, i.e. there is a structural description of the hand movements. Using this description, similarities between signs can be calculated. So, one search type is to fetch signs that are similar to another sign, in terms of transcription. MagnusG -- 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/-/tXQRVnAZFAkJ. 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: Consistently getting inconsistent reads in GAE Java DataStore
Gets by key always return consistent data, unless you specifically force it to be eventually consistent. Similarly, ancestor queries on the HR datastore always give you the correct data. Both are wrapped in transactions in the background, I believe. The overview on http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/hr/ describes which elements have strong and weak consistency on the different datastores. -- 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/-/M_D-PIVoxL4J. 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: Consistently getting inconsistent reads in GAE Java DataStore
Thanks to you all for the input. However, I'm quite surprised : - I disabled "Local HRD support" in "Appengine properties" (I'm using Eclipse plugin) - The app now appears to work normally (i.e showing no stale data) when run locally - My appengine app bastide07 indicates " Master/Slave Replication" - The problem of stale data still persists when run on appengine, see : http://bastide07.appspot.com/staledata I -- 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/-/mFSP9vJVzKQJ. 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: Question about Data Store Read operations
Hi Frank, Have you solved it? I have nearly the same problem. I think that appstats do not count some datastore read operations. I thought my application accessed datastore during intialization before appstat filter is being invoked. But I can't find anything bad during my app initialization. Do you have any ideas? -- 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/-/Tr6-P0a_XWAJ. 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] non-existent support?
Hello! It appears that to get any support from Google a company has to purchase a very expensive support plan. Regularly billed apps get nothing - real production issues (e.g. indexes stuck in "error", even with vacuum attempts) that affect app behavior don't get any attention for hours or even days. Is this just my outlying perception, or indeed Google does not treat its paying AppEngine customers as other businesses threat them? Does Google have actual 24x7 support team with GAE? We are seriously considering switching to AWS because of this... MG -- 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: non-existent support?
If you have read what people say about the "Premium" support service, you should know that its not much better neither. It could still take days to just get a reply. If you want a service with official support, AppEngine is not where you should go. -- 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/-/Ul9FLFeeac8J. 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: (mostly) Consistent 20-second delay in starting backend tasks
I had the same problem, with often quite exact 20 seconds delays. More details in this thread. http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/e5588268dff9b97a In another configuration, the delay increased to several minutes. Please star this bug. http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=6022 -- 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: (mostly) Consistent 20-second delay in starting backend tasks
Interesting. I saw your thread but wasn't entirely sure if it was the issue. I think the thing that threw me off was that your delays were being reflected in the request ms in the logs, while in my case they mostly aren't. Does setting the task countdown work for you? Or is ~1 second delay still too much in your case? On Jan 29, 10:24 am, pdknsk wrote: > I had the same problem, with often quite exact 20 seconds delays. More > details in this thread. > > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/... > > In another configuration, the delay increased to several minutes. > Please star this bug. > > http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=6022 -- 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: (mostly) Consistent 20-second delay in starting backend tasks
I haven't tried setting countdown. It's too slow for the mail queue anyway. It might work on the other backend (mentioned in the bug). I've moved most code away from backends though. > *- After first minute of the batch run, Task Queue Details page > consistently shows 6-8 tasks run in last minute even though logs show only > 2-3 requests served per minute (no errors or anything abnormal shown in the > logs either). I know for certain the only tasks running in the queue in > question are from my tests. Why is the number overstated, and why does it > only happen in the single-instance configuration?* I've noticed sth. else, with might be related. When you stop a backend, and put tasks on it, the tasks will obviously not run. In the task queue overview in the dashboard however, tasks are reported to have run in the last minute. -- 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] User Specific DB
I would like each user of my application to have their own separate DB instance. This is because each user comes from different business and so I don't want any risk of user A seeing data from user B (which could happen if query forgot to say where owningUser = 'xyz'. Also, if all businesses share same datastore, the tables will get very big which may slow things down. So, do I need to register multilple app instances? I kind of want one app instance, but multilpe data stores, is this possible? -- 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/-/2b98TZXJJzwJ. 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] User Specific DB
hi, You can use namespaces to support multitenancy -- see this page for more information: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/multitenancy/overview.html On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 7:37 PM, pete7373 wrote: > I would like each user of my application to have their own separate DB > instance. This is because each user comes from different business and so I > don't want any risk of user A seeing data from user B (which could happen > if query forgot to say where owningUser = 'xyz'. Also, if all businesses > share same datastore, the tables will get very big which may slow things > down. > > So, do I need to register multilple app instances? > > I kind of want one app instance, but multilpe data stores, is this > possible? > > > -- > 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/-/2b98TZXJJzwJ. > 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] 手机验证问题
我很早以前就已经注册并创建了goagent程序了 现在我想多创建几个出来 。但怎么提示我还要输入手机号码验证呢？我的号码已经验证过了 不能在次 验证了呀。 不是说只是首次需要手机短信验证吗？ The phone number has been sent too many messages or has already been used to confirm an -- 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] 手机验证问题
hi, I can't read the first part of your message :), but fill out this form if you are having sms verification issues: https://appengine.google.com/waitlist/sms_issues 2012/1/29 彼岸之美，在于彼岸之无渡。 > 我很早以前就已经注册并创建了goagent程序了 现在我想多创建几个出来 。但怎么提示我还要输入手机号码验证呢？我的号码已经验证过了 不能在次 > 验证了呀。 不是说只是首次需要手机短信验证吗？ > The phone number has been sent too many messages or has already been > used to confirm an > > -- > 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] User Specific DB
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:37 AM, pete7373 wrote: > Also, if all businesses share > same datastore, the tables will get very big which may slow things down. FYI, this is not an issue with the GAE datastore. Your data already lives in a very, very large table along with terabytes (petabytes?) of other people's data. A "BigTable". 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: Is App Engine suitable for write intensive applications?
I think my initial message was a bit unclear. I meant that each client sends on average 1 post/minute and the system has to support several thousand clients. Hundreds of writes per second may not be that far away in the future. Do you know some best practices in order to sustain the rates you mentioned? I thought about performing writes from task queues to try to reduce datastore contention by keeping a constant rate of operations (regardless of how many clients post to the service at the same time). Does the number of entities in a given group have any impact on the performance of subsequent writes (transactional or not) to that group? Regards, Andrei On Jan 28, 7:20 am, Robert Kluin wrote: > One of the things that amazes me so much about App Engine is that it can > handle hundreds, or thousands, of writes per second. I've seen it do this > numerous times. It takes some knowledge to sustain those rates, but it is > very possible. > > Robert > > On Friday, January 27, 2012, Ikai Lan (Google) wrote:> > Yes, 1 post a minute is fine. Even 1 write a second is fine. > > Where you will run into issues is when your application does something > > like ~hundreds of writes a second. There are very few systems that will do > this well, and you will have to start looking into sharding your writes - > but for now this is a premature optimization. > > > -- > > Ikai Lan > > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine > > plus.ikailan.com > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andrei-Ştefăniţă Cocorean < > andrei.cocor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> I want to develop a web service which will be used by a few thousand > > clients to save new pieces of data at a rate of aprox. 1 post/minute. I've > been looking at what App Engine has to offer but I'm not sure if it's the > right platform for this kind of system. At a glance it seems the datastore > is optimized for efficient reads, but not so much for write intensive > applications. > > >> I'd appreciate any help on deciding whether it's worth to try and build > > this service on App Engine. Also, if you implemented something similar I'd > be interested in hearing what problems you encountered along the way. > > >> Regards, > >> Andrei > > >> -- > >> 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/-/bW3pKqHKcSEJ.>> 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. > > > > -- > -- > Robert Kluin > Ezox Systems, LLC -- 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: non-existent support?
While I have made fun of the support plan, don't think that it is because it "is not much better" it just isn't what most people think. They aren't going to reach in and re-write your code, and if you are on MS it doesn't magically fix those limitations. If you have down time, likely there is an outage and it won't help with that. Support however is invaluable if you are going to do a migration, or if you need deep information about how something works. If you have a big client it is also worth it to get the guarantee that your terms won't change for however long, and that you can say "Yes I spoke with Google they estimate resolution in X hours" Getting priority support is also worthwhile if you want to make sure you have early access to features so that you can test them before they are fully deployed. Lastly, having a support rep is good for making sure Google knows what your app does, so that when decisions are being made, you are a use case they are aware of. $500 a month is cheap for all of this if you really are running at Enterprise scale. 25% of your monthly bill for support is cheap. For people with $100 a month bill, yes this looks daunting, but at the risk of sounding like a pompous ass (which I am) if you are that small, you don't need any of the things I outlined above. From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Shane Elbo Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:11 AM To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com Subject: [google-appengine] Re: non-existent support? If you have read what people say about the "Premium" support service, you should know that its not much better neither. It could still take days to just get a reply. If you want a service with official support, AppEngine is not where you should go. -- 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/-/Ul9FLFeeac8J. 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: Is App Engine suitable for write intensive applications?
There are really only two hard issues that will limit your write rate, assuming adequate budget: 1) Limit of one write per second per entity group. This one is usually really easy to work around; just break your app up into many entity groups. Most apps tend to naturally break down by user or by business or some other categorization that has a low per-unit write rate. As long as you are cognizant of query eventuality and XG transaction limits, you can scale up to any write rate. If each user is a separate entity group, it's like each user is running on it's own little database. The problems tend to appear when you need accurate runtime counts across changing data. At this point look into sharded counters. You shouldn't need to do this often. 2) Throughput limit on tablet splits for increasing index values You won't hit this until many hundreds of writes per second. The problem is when you have an index on a more-or-less monotonically increasing field like say a timestamp. When the index is updated, the writes will always be to the end of the table... and you'll get a "hot tablet" that will split (causing a delay), then another "hot tablet" since you're always writing to the end. The HRD helps in that it gives you a multiple of the total write rate, but you still get a limit. Ikai wrote about this (and drew some awesome cartoons) here: http://ikaisays.com/2011/01/25/app-engine-datastore-tip-monotonically-increasing-values-are-bad/ If you design with these two issues in mind, you shouldn't have any problem doing thousands of writes per second... or whatever you can afford. Jeff 2012/1/29 Andrei-Ştefăniţă Cocorean : > I think my initial message was a bit unclear. I meant that each client > sends on average 1 post/minute and the system has to support several > thousand clients. Hundreds of writes per second may not be that far > away in the future. > > Do you know some best practices in order to sustain the rates you > mentioned? I thought about performing writes from task queues to try > to reduce datastore contention by keeping a constant rate of > operations (regardless of how many clients post to the service at the > same time). > > Does the number of entities in a given group have any impact on the > performance of subsequent writes (transactional or not) to that group? > > > Regards, > Andrei > > > On Jan 28, 7:20 am, Robert Kluin wrote: >> One of the things that amazes me so much about App Engine is that it can >> handle hundreds, or thousands, of writes per second. I've seen it do this >> numerous times. It takes some knowledge to sustain those rates, but it is >> very possible. >> >> Robert >> >> On Friday, January 27, 2012, Ikai Lan (Google) wrote:> >> Yes, 1 post a minute is fine. Even 1 write a second is fine. >> > Where you will run into issues is when your application does something >> >> like ~hundreds of writes a second. There are very few systems that will do >> this well, and you will have to start looking into sharding your writes - >> but for now this is a premature optimization. >> >> > -- >> > Ikai Lan >> > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine >> > plus.ikailan.com >> >> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andrei-Ştefăniţă Cocorean < >> andrei.cocor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> I want to develop a web service which will be used by a few thousand >> >> clients to save new pieces of data at a rate of aprox. 1 post/minute. I've >> been looking at what App Engine has to offer but I'm not sure if it's the >> right platform for this kind of system. At a glance it seems the datastore >> is optimized for efficient reads, but not so much for write intensive >> applications. >> >> >> I'd appreciate any help on deciding whether it's worth to try and build >> >> this service on App Engine. Also, if you implemented something similar I'd >> be interested in hearing what problems you encountered along the way. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Andrei >> >> >> -- >> >> 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/-/bW3pKqHKcSEJ.>> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Robert Kluin >> Ezox Systems, LLC > > -- > You received this message becau
[google-appengine] Re: non-existent support?
On Jan 29, 6:04 pm, "Brandon Wirtz" wrote: > While I have made fun of the support plan, don't think that it is because it > "is not much better" it just isn't what most people think. They aren't going > to reach in and re-write your code, and if you are on MS it doesn't > magically fix those limitations. If you have down time, likely there is an > outage and it won't help with that. > > Support however is invaluable if you are going to do a migration, or if you > need deep information about how something works. If you have a big client > it is also worth it to get the guarantee that your terms won't change for > however long, and that you can say "Yes I spoke with Google they estimate > resolution in X hours" > > Getting priority support is also worthwhile if you want to make sure you > have early access to features so that you can test them before they are > fully deployed. > > Lastly, having a support rep is good for making sure Google knows what your > app does, so that when decisions are being made, you are a use case they are > aware of. $500 a month is cheap for all of this if you really are running > at Enterprise scale. 25% of your monthly bill for support is cheap. > I'm not asking for this kind of developer-type support. I'm asking for basic things like "something is broken on your side, could you, please, have a look?" Have a look at AppEngine open issues - dozens of new production issues opened over the last couple of days (Friday evening to Sunday), and zero attention from Google. Compare this with AWS forums - there is always somebody from Amazon online, answering within an hour. Or compare this to RackSpace, where they have 24x7 live chat. -- 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: 'Flush' Like "I'm tapping out but keep working" in Python?
Hey Steve, The DEFAULT_APP_VERSION var was added so that you could send a task to whatever version is currently marked as default. Without it there was no way to target a task at the current default version of your app. You'd want to use it if you have, for example, a backend that inserts tasks that need to run on the current default version. There are a number of cases where this arises, when you hit one you will know. Yeah I'd love to see the ability to give task queues a priority relative to user requests and relative to each other. That would be pretty cool. Of course if they implement that then we could probably get even finer control over the scheduler -- which could be handy as well! Robert On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 18:47, stevep wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Sorry my ramblings were hard to parse. Basic question is the first you > mentioned, "Why is there the TQ option for DEFAULT_APP_VERSION, and > when is it best used?" > > There was a discussion related to a priority TQ a year or so ago. > Someone (Vlad?) initiated a request for a priority TQ, and I did star > it at the time. > > Cheers, > Steve > > On Jan 27, 10:16 pm, Robert Kluin wrote: >> Hey Steve, >> I'm a bit confused about what you're asking / commenting about here. Are >> you asking about the default queue, why there is a >> taskqueue.DEFAULT_APP_VERSION variable, or whether it is better to send >> tasks to a different version of your app? >> >> I generally prefer to use the same version of my apps for both tasks and >> user requests. The biggest reason queues slow down is because there aren't >> enough instances. Splitting user requests and tasks up will probably just >> make that problem worse. >> >> My tasks generally run quite fast, but they do occasionally back up when I >> font have enough instances. The taskqueue team recently added a new header >> you can use to research the execution latency of your tasks. >> >> I know several others have asked for the ability to define a high priority >> push queue as well. I agree that this would be a very powerful feature. >> Particularly if you could define the relative priority to user requests and >> other queues. I'm not sure if there is an existing feature request for >> this or not, but if you make one I'll star it. >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 27, 2012, stevep wrote: >> > Thanks Robert, >> >> > I knew about the addition of the "default" TQ call, but am not sure >> > about why it should be implemented. Last I checked, there was only one >> > sentence in the docs about this new feature. >> >> > Since I use TQs heavily, my main concern is ensuring in the manner >> > Brandon is investigating the issue of avoiding "minutes or hours to >> > task initiation" is important for me. Some tasks are not time- >> > sensitive (e.g. stats updates), however others such as what Brandon is >> > describing I would like to run as immediately as possible. >> >> > My initial thought about sending tasks to a the default app from a >> > different numbered version was that it would enable this "highly >> > reliable" queue. If all the only resource user in the default app is >> > my TQ, does this ensure more reliable and faster task processing vs. >> > sending the task to a TQ in a shared front-end handler environment? >> >> > That's my personal take on using the default queue feature -- but >> > influenced by my bias for wanting a highly reliable queue. To date, >> > I've seen nothing in the forums or docs about why the default queue >> > should be used. I know there is sound rationale for it since someone >> > took the time to develop it. >> >> > BTW Brandon: be sure to look at pull queues also. May have great >> > potential for your never-ending pursuit to run GAE for Jeff for Free. >> > View the video session title "Putting Task Queues to Work" at the >> > link below. First 15 minutes shows how to reduce datastore writes by a >> > factor of 1,000 -- something I really needed recently. Link: >> >http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/videoresources.html >> >> > Thanks, >> > stevep >> >> > "Task queues: the red-headed child in a family of blondes" >> >> > On Jan 26, 11:26 pm, Robert Kluin wrote: >> >> Hey Steve, >> >> They actually added a default version "target" recently. You can >> >> use that to send a task back to the default version of your app, just >> >> as you would to send a task to a numbered version. Just set the >> >> target to taskqueue.DEFAULT_APP_VERSION. >> >> >> Robert >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:25, stevep wrote: >> >> > Very helpful. Any ideas about the what+why of sending tasks to the >> >> > default version when running a numbered version? thx-stevep >> >> >> > On Jan 23, 12:53 pm, Jeff Schnitzer wrote: >> >> >> Task Queues execute on frontend instances just like normal requests. >> >> >> They will only spin up a 2nd instance if the additional task traffic >> >> >> crosses the normal latency/idle threshold. >> >> >> >> Ta
Re: [google-appengine] Any one have a copy of the letter Google Sent to Users of Optional Services?
I've received a number of the "admin" versions (like what you've posted), but I have yet to see a user version (though I am only a user on several apps domains as well). You'd think people working at a company like Google would be nerdy enough to know that one-ring-to-rule-them-all never works out well. I tend to agree though, different services have different language needs. Robert On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 19:17, Brandon Wirtz wrote: > I got this letter from Google. And I’m curious what the letter sent to > Users looks like, and if by being on Apps For Domains if the new Terms of > service extends to my users. > > > > We talked about how GAE doesn’t have the Uploads can be used for derivative > works by Google rule, but I can’t see anywhere that Apps For Domains Doesn’t > have that rule. > > > > BTW I think One Policy To Rule Them all has made a crappy experience because > now there seems to be people from every product team telling me the > exceptions to the rules for their products, but not being sure where to > point me at to find where those are so I can print them out, stick them on > my wall and be ready when Google makes the next change. > > > > > >>>< > > Dear Google Apps administrator for cdninabox.com, > > We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and > replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new > policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to > create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience for your users across > Google products. > > As always, Google will maintain your data in strict compliance with the > confidentiality and security obligations provided to your domain. > > If you permit your users to access optional additional Google services for > your domain, your users may separately receive notifications communicating > the new Privacy Policy. You can visit your Google Apps control panel at any > time if you'd like to review the additional services accessible to your > users. > > We're excited about the improvements we are making across our products and > appreciate your support. You can view the new privacy policy at > http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, > 2012. > >><< > > > > > > -- > 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] Not able to start Launcher on Ubuntu Natty
Hey Vijay, You should post the full error, including the exception info and stack trace. It is very hard to debug issues without full and accurate information. Robert On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 01:04, Vijay wrote: > - With Python 2.7, I was able to start ./GoogleAppEngineLauncher.py > but could not create a project as it throwed a error saying, cannot > copy templates > > --- After reading some link found that, SDK supports python 2.5 > -- Installed Pyton 2.5.2 > --- tried installing python-wxgtk2.5 python-wxtools wx2.5-i18n > -- Not successful > > Can some help me > > -- > 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: Question about Data Store Read operations
Are you using sessions? On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 05:37, Andrew Osipenko wrote: > Hi Frank, > > Have you solved it? > > I have nearly the same problem. > > I think that appstats do not count some datastore read operations. I thought > my application accessed datastore during intialization before appstat filter > is being invoked. But I can't find anything bad during my app > initialization. Do you have any ideas? > > -- > 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/-/Tr6-P0a_XWAJ. > > 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: Is App Engine suitable for write intensive applications?
Hi Andrei, I just wanted to comment on one little thing in addition to all the stuff Jeff said. I'd not suggest using the task-queue to do all writes by default, but it is a good idea. I would suggest that you try the write, then if you hit an exception (over quota, timeout, deadline, internal error, etc...) defer the write to a task. I've had extremely good luck with this approach on very high sustained write rate apps in the past. If you're wanting to return to the client as fast as possible, set a low deadline for the db put in the user request. That way if you hit a little latency flare-up, you have more control of the user experience. Robert 2012/1/29 Andrei-Ştefăniţă Cocorean : > I think my initial message was a bit unclear. I meant that each client > sends on average 1 post/minute and the system has to support several > thousand clients. Hundreds of writes per second may not be that far > away in the future. > > Do you know some best practices in order to sustain the rates you > mentioned? I thought about performing writes from task queues to try > to reduce datastore contention by keeping a constant rate of > operations (regardless of how many clients post to the service at the > same time). > > Does the number of entities in a given group have any impact on the > performance of subsequent writes (transactional or not) to that group? > > > Regards, > Andrei > > > On Jan 28, 7:20 am, Robert Kluin wrote: >> One of the things that amazes me so much about App Engine is that it can >> handle hundreds, or thousands, of writes per second. I've seen it do this >> numerous times. It takes some knowledge to sustain those rates, but it is >> very possible. >> >> Robert >> >> On Friday, January 27, 2012, Ikai Lan (Google) wrote:> >> Yes, 1 post a minute is fine. Even 1 write a second is fine. >> > Where you will run into issues is when your application does something >> >> like ~hundreds of writes a second. There are very few systems that will do >> this well, and you will have to start looking into sharding your writes - >> but for now this is a premature optimization. >> >> > -- >> > Ikai Lan >> > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine >> > plus.ikailan.com >> >> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andrei-Ştefăniţă Cocorean < >> andrei.cocor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> I want to develop a web service which will be used by a few thousand >> >> clients to save new pieces of data at a rate of aprox. 1 post/minute. I've >> been looking at what App Engine has to offer but I'm not sure if it's the >> right platform for this kind of system. At a glance it seems the datastore >> is optimized for efficient reads, but not so much for write intensive >> applications. >> >> >> I'd appreciate any help on deciding whether it's worth to try and build >> >> this service on App Engine. Also, if you implemented something similar I'd >> be interested in hearing what problems you encountered along the way. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Andrei >> >> >> -- >> >> 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/-/bW3pKqHKcSEJ.>> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Robert Kluin >> Ezox Systems, LLC > > -- > 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: non-existent support?
Google is definitely not known for having good support. However, I think they are obviously trying to improve on this front. I see new Googler's names propping up answering questions all the time, so the team is clearly growing. Voicing your concerns is probably good feedback for them. On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 19:19, MG wrote: > > > On Jan 29, 6:04 pm, "Brandon Wirtz" wrote: >> While I have made fun of the support plan, don't think that it is because it >> "is not much better" it just isn't what most people think. They aren't going >> to reach in and re-write your code, and if you are on MS it doesn't >> magically fix those limitations. If you have down time, likely there is an >> outage and it won't help with that. >> >> Support however is invaluable if you are going to do a migration, or if you >> need deep information about how something works. If you have a big client >> it is also worth it to get the guarantee that your terms won't change for >> however long, and that you can say "Yes I spoke with Google they estimate >> resolution in X hours" >> >> Getting priority support is also worthwhile if you want to make sure you >> have early access to features so that you can test them before they are >> fully deployed. >> >> Lastly, having a support rep is good for making sure Google knows what your >> app does, so that when decisions are being made, you are a use case they are >> aware of. $500 a month is cheap for all of this if you really are running >> at Enterprise scale. 25% of your monthly bill for support is cheap. >> > > I'm not asking for this kind of developer-type support. I'm asking for > basic things like "something is broken on your side, could you, > please, have a look?" Have a look at AppEngine open issues - dozens of > new production issues opened over the last couple of days (Friday > evening to Sunday), and zero attention from Google. Compare this with > AWS forums - there is always somebody from Amazon online, answering > within an hour. Or compare this to RackSpace, where they have 24x7 > live chat. > > -- > 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.
