[google-appengine] Re: Google Fetch Contact Details of Logged in user

[vikash chaurasia]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:16:04 AM UTC+5:30, vikash chaurasia wrote: 
>
> Hi,
>  
> I want to get the contacts (email etc.) of logged in user on GAE 
> application. How can I do this? Please give us any example and also APIs 
> which we can use to do this.
>  
> Thanks,
> Vikash
>

-- 
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/-/zmPwINjzXcIJ.
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: @Persistent(serialized = "true") vs @Persistent

[applehund]

Thanks Amy! This makes sense :)

Another question I have is do list objects that are serialized still count 
towards the 5000 member field limit? So currently if I have a GAE object 
with:

*@Persistent*
*private *Listfoo;

and foo contains 5000+ objects then I can't load it from the datastore. 
Does this change if foo is stored as a serialized blob property instead?

*@Persistent(serialized = "true")
*
*private *Listfoo;

Since it's not indexed?

Thanks!

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:55:58 AM UTC-7, Amy Unruh wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> The app engine JDO documentation goes into this in more detail-- take a 
> look at the discussion of the field types.
> The 
> https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/jdo/dataclasses
>
> A serialized field is stored as a blob property.  You can use it to set a 
> field of your instance to some (serializable) object, with the 
> serialization and deserialization handled for you. Blob values are not 
> indexed and cannot be used in query filters or sort orders. 
> You might want to use a serialized field if you have an object that should 
> be part of an entity, and is not a 'core type' (or supported collection), 
> and whose contents don't need to be indexed-- in that case it's often 
> simplest to just serialize it wholesale.
>
> If your field is a core type (like Integer), you don't need to serialize 
> it -- just annotate it as 'unindexed' if you don't want it indexed.  
>
> On 15 August 2012 09:15, applehund >wrote:
>
>> *bump bump*
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 1:59:23 PM UTC-7, applehund wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi there, can anyone explain the pros & cons of these two styles? Like 
>>> if I have an Integer member variable:
>>>
>>> *@Persistent*
>>> *private* Integer foo;
>>>
>>> *@Persistent(serialized = "true")*
>>> *private* Integer foo;
>>>
>>> I do know that with the serialized version I have to always mark it 
>>> dirty with *JDOHelper.makeDirty(...).*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Is there a speed performance boost for serialized? A storage size 
>>> decrease? Why wouldn't I just use *@Persistent *always?
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone!
>>>
>>  -- 
>> 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/-/EJuts8ODccwJ.
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to 
>> google-a...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> google-appengi...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/HYoP3H5elucJ.
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: Weird Instance Scheduler

[Kristopher Giesing]

>
> Resident instances are used for processing incoming request if there 
> is no dynamic instance
>

This is the behavior we all want, but experimentation seems to indicate it 
doesn't happen, at least for some apps.

- Kris

-- 
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/-/_wh1KzpESLEJ.
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: Weird Instance Scheduler

[Carl Schroeder]

Let me see if I understand this correctly: there is currently no way on app 
engine to ensure that there is an instance ready to process incoming 
requests for an app that has been idle for some period of time. Min idle 
instances (labeled as Resident) sit there and do almost nothing while user 
facing requests are instead sent to cold instance starts. If true, that 
dovetails with what I have seen in the behavior of my app. For python 
runtimes with sub-second spinup times, this is no big deal. For java 
runtimes with spinup times in double digit seconds it is a deal-breaker of 
a "feature".

The problem seems to be that the scheduler thinks sending a request to a 
non-existent dynamic instance is a better idea than using the Resident 
instance for it's intended purpose: to serve requests when dynamic 
instances are unable to. This is probably a corner case born of low traffic 
conditions that allow user request serving dynamic instances to despawn.

For low traffic apps, "Resident" instances serve almost no purpose. Better 
to do away with them via the slider bars and just set up a script to tickle 
the app just often enough to keep one "Dynamic" instance resident.

So, two features to fix this: 
First, a slider bar labeled "Minimum Dynamic instances" ;)
Second, a button to enable sending warm-up requests and having them return 
before considering an instance for user facing requests.


-- 
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/-/G4DPOlW2Jh8J.
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] App Engine Development on a Budget (With a $35 Raspberry Pi computer)

[james jones]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Bryce Cutt  wrote:

> I suspect you are very right Anand. It seems likely that the speed of the
> RAM is going to play a huge part as well. I didn't mean to suggest it was
> an apples to apples comparison, just proposed it as a curiosity.
>
> If I was going to use the Pi as a web server so that it could perform a
> task in and of itself I would likely choose something like Tornado paired
> with webapp2 instead of dev_appserver. But the fact that you can develop
> huge scale web applications on such an inexpensive device is kind of cool.
> It's kind of like running a web server on an iPhone: it is not very
> practical, but it is cool. Actually, now I want to run dev_appserver on my
> iPhone
>
> - Bryce
>
> --
> 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/-/2p4FJF4xnXgJ.
>
> 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.
>

Have you guys looked at AppScale  and
TyphoonAE ?

-- 
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] App Engine Development on a Budget (With a $35 Raspberry Pi computer)

[Bryce Cutt]

I suspect you are very right Anand. It seems likely that the speed of the 
RAM is going to play a huge part as well. I didn't mean to suggest it was 
an apples to apples comparison, just proposed it as a curiosity.

If I was going to use the Pi as a web server so that it could perform a 
task in and of itself I would likely choose something like Tornado paired 
with webapp2 instead of dev_appserver. But the fact that you can develop 
huge scale web applications on such an inexpensive device is kind of cool. 
It's kind of like running a web server on an iPhone: it is not very 
practical, but it is cool. Actually, now I want to run dev_appserver on my 
iPhone

- Bryce

-- 
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/-/2p4FJF4xnXgJ.
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] Custom SSL certificate with more than two intermediate CAs

[Cayden Meyer]

Just updating this thread. We have added support for up to 5
chained/intermediate certificates. Users of Comodo and other CAs which
require more than 2 chained/intermediate certificates can now append the CA
provided bundles/intermediate certificates to their uploaded certificate.

Cheers,

Cayden Meyer
Product Manager, Google App Engine

On 3 August 2012 18:27, Nacho Coloma  wrote:

> Hi Cayden,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> You appear to have the incorrect CNAME for your domain. This is most
>> probably what is causing android browsers to fail to connect. The correct
>> CNAME can be found in your Google Apps control panel. The uploading and
>> configuring certificates section of the SSL for Custom Domains
>> documentation  may
>> prove helpful if you have any issues.
>>
>
> Yep, I saw the change of ghs name but since neither certificate was
> working we are just stopping this (with this working configuration) until
> our new certificate arrives.
>
> We just purchased a new one with DigiCert that includes EV validation and
> uses (supposedly, as far as we could check) a single intermediate authority.
>
>
>> On the topic of intermediate certificates you should be able to download
>> a single intermediate certificate from Comodo 
>> here.
>> Usually certificate authorities provide a bundle file which contains the
>> full chain, all the certificates in the bundle are often not required.
>>
>
> Ours is (was) a Comodo EssentialSSL. It comes with 5 CAs in the bundle,
> and AFAIK most browsers require the chain up to the root CA.
>
> Don't worry about this, the change of certificate should fix it up.
> Anyway, I would reconsider the limitation of two CAs in the PEM bundle, if
> that's an option. Anyway, it's just my fault for not fully understanding
> the limitations before choosing the certificate provider. Thank God for the
> 15-days refund policy.
>
> Thanks for your support.
>
>
>>
>> On 2 August 2012 04:03, Nacho Coloma  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I have just configured a certificate for our own custom domain (VIP)
>>> and it is working fine, but Android browsers are rejecting to connect.
>>>
>>> Investigating, it seems that I should include the full chain of
>>> intermediate CAs to the uploaded PEM file, but that's not possible since
>>> AppEngine only allows at most two certificates in the PEM file. Our Comodo
>>> certificate has a chain composed of five CAs. If I try to upload the full
>>> PEM file, AppEngine complains that the format is not supported.
>>>
>>> The working certificate can be seen at https://koliseo.com. You can
>>> test it with:
>>>
>>> openssl s_client -showcerts -connect www.koliseo.com:443
>>>
>>> Desktop browsers are OK with it, but Android (Froyo and Honeycomb) will
>>> just refuse to connect. 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/-/AvvSXY6BrugJ.
>>> 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: Weird Instance Scheduler

[Johan Euphrosine]

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Johan Euphrosine  wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Mobicage  wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Can somebody explain how it is possible that
>> - I have 1 "resident" java appengine instance
>> - I didnt send any test requests for 90 minutes
>> - When I sent the request, the system had to warm up, although I have 1
>> resident java appengine.
>>
>> What does resident exactly mean?
>
> I believe Jon described resident in great details in this thread:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/nRtzGtG9790/hLS16qux_04J
>
> """
> Because the scheduler is now treating the reserved instances as
> Min-Idle-Instances, what you're describing is expected
> behavior. They are intentionally kept idle, and it tries to serve
> traffic using the non-reserved instances. Then, if the
> non-reserved instances can't keep up, then it will make use of
> the reserved instances.
> That is, to repeat, the invariant that the scheduler is trying to
> maintain here is that your app has at least 3 idle instances.
> And if an instance is getting traffic, then it isn't idle. The value
> of an idle instance is that it can process requests right-away
> if needed, without having to first warmup or do a loading request.
>
> It sounds like what you'd really prefer is something like
> Min-Instances, but that's not presently an available option.
> """
>
> The scheduler route traffic to resident idle instance when dynamic
> instances can't keep with the traffic and always try to keep Min Idle
> Instances in reserve at all times,
>
> I believe it currently need to start at least 1 dynamic instance before
> making use of the resident idle capacity.

Correction, I answered that too fast.

Resident instances are used for processing incoming request if there
is no dynamic instance, but it is possible that the scheduler warm up
new dynamic instance to maintain the Min Idle Instance invariant.

carl@ if you can give us your application id, and the last timestamp
of occurence of the event you reported, we can try to figure out why
your test spawned a new dynamic instance.

>
>> My settings are:
>> * Idle Instances: ( 1 – 1 )
>> * Pending latency: (Automatic - 500ms)
>>
>> Logs (blanked out some stuff with xxx):
>>
>> 2012-08-24 22:14:43.786 /xxx 200 8872ms 0kb AppEngine-Google;
>> (+http://code.google.com/appengine; appid: s~xxx)
>> 0.1.0.40 - - [24/Aug/2012:15:14:43 -0700] "POST /xxx HTTP/1.1" 200 793 -
>> "AppEngine-Google; (+http://code.google.com/appengine; appid: s~xxx)"
>> "xxx.appspot.com" ms=8873 cpu_ms=5157 cpm_usd=0.89 loading_request=1
>> instance=00c61b117c1360f2e8f3cdce153a3c79777a7e81
>>
>> I 2012-08-24 22:14:43.786
>> This request caused a new process to be started for your application, and
>> thus caused your application code to be loaded for the first time. This
>> request may thus take longer and use more CPU than a typical request for
>> your application.
>>
>> 2012-08-24 20:46:47.635 /xxx 200 1862ms 0kb AppEngine-Google;
>> (+http://code.google.com/appengine)
>> 0.1.0.2 - - [24/Aug/2012:13:46:47 -0700] "POST /xxx HTTP/1.1" 200 0 "xxx"
>> "AppEngine-Google; (+http://code.google.com/appengine)" "xxx.appspot.com"
>> ms=1863 cpu_ms=260 cpm_usd=0.000260 queue_name=default
>> task_name=9251619801338774487
>> instance=00c61b117c266e667e6954feaef8bf2492f23006
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:58:44 PM UTC+2, Mos wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anybody else experience abnormal behavior of the instance-scheduler
>>> the last three weeks (the last 7 days it got even worse)?  (Java / HRD)
>>> Or does anybody has profound knowledge about it?
>>>
>>> Background:  My application is unchanged for weeks, configuration not
>>> changed and application's traffic is constant.
>>> Traffic: One request per minute from Pingdom and around 200 additional
>>> pageviews the day (== around 1500 pageviews the day). The peek is not more
>>> then 3-4 request per minute.
>>>
>>> It's very obvious that one instance should be enough for my application.
>>> And that was almost the case the last months!
>>>
>>> But now GAE creates most of the time 3 instances, whereby on has a long
>>> life-time for days and the other ones are restarted around
>>> 10 to 30 times the day.
>>> Because load request takes between 30s to 40s  and requests are waiting
>>> for loading instances, there are many request that
>>> fail  (Users and Pingdom agree: A request that takes more then a couple of
>>> seconds is a failed request!)
>>>
>>> Please check the attached screenshots that show the behavior!
>>>
>>> Note:
>>> - Killing instances manually did not help
>>> - Idle Instances were ( Automatic – 2 ) .  Changing it to whatever didn't
>>> not change anything; e.g. like ( Automatic – 4 )
>>>
>>> Thanks and Cheers
>>> Mos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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

Re: [google-appengine] Supported languages and development methods

[Barry Hunter]

Well if you are talking about a databaseless application, its pretty much
just static files as far as the hosting server is concerned. (all the
dynamics (with JS) happen in the client browser)

There is lots of talk of using AppEngine for hosting purely static files,
even blog posts about it.
For example:
http://www.instantfundas.com/2011/02/how-to-host-static-websites-on-google.html


If it uses a database, then its very similar, you just need server side
code that exposes the database via APIs taht the client 'application' can
consume and interact with. For this the APIs 'server' could be written in
Python, Java or Go.

Also see
https://developers.google.com/web-toolkit/
which is a framework for building such applications.


This is very similar in concept to Mobile Application Development. All the
interaction happens on the client (just via an App rather than a bunch of
html/js files) - a server just serves to give the app to the user (again
static file) and provide a set of APIs.


(So I would humbly suggest, what you are talking about is well discussed -
you just havent found the right keywords to search :)




On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Hain45  wrote:

> Hello and good day to all of you.
>
> I wouldn't normally start a thread without first rigorously searching
> through a group to see if somebody else has asked the 'exact' same question
> before (turns out that a lot of times, they have), but I haven't found such
> a question yet for Google App Engine.
>
> My question is:
>
> Can you use Google App Engine to host web/mobile apps that are built using
> only HTML, CSS and JS (with/without database interaction) ?
>
> According to what I've come across recently, it is just as easy and
> powerful to build an app for a mobile/smartphone or PC using HTML5, CSS3
> and JavaScript as it would be to use a language like Python or Java (some
> people may have gripes about such a suggestion, but realistically speaking,
> a lot can be done with those languages).
>
> It also seems that using HTML and JS can actually make cross-platform
> development much easier than starting scratch for each new platform(which
> is why services like "phonegap" are popular).
>
> Hopefully somebody experienced in using the GAE services will be able to
> assist with this answer (as I am sure a ton of developers will probably
> have this exact question in the future - when cross-platform development
> does become very popular).
>
> I am also asking this before I sign-up to GAE, as it may turn out that
> HTML, CSS and JS development is not suitable for the GAE services and maybe
> another option developers can consider is the AWS-free option (which seems
> as though it can handle any development).
>
> I look forward to hearing from you guys soon.
>
> --
> 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/-/7ip3QztaCN0J.
> 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] App Engine Development on a Budget (With a $35 Raspberry Pi computer)

[Anand Mistry]

Running the dev_appserver on a Raspberry Pi is an interesting idea. 
However, I think the performance is going to be lacking. Yes, it's 700MHz, 
but you're dealing with an ARM11 as opposed to a a modern x86 chip. Also, I 
suspect the "disk" IO performance to be pretty bad. I don't have a Pi, but 
I do have a Pandaboard and the SD card performance leaves a lot to be 
desired. Here's a short note from Google's SVP of infrastructure with his 
opinion on processor cores (
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/fr//pubs/archive/36448.pdf
).

On Sunday, 26 August 2012 16:17:23 UTC+10, Bryce Cutt wrote:
>
> To be honest I had not yet thought about it much beyond having the initial 
> idea.
>
> Due to the fact that the dev server is simulating all the GAE services 
> (datastore, urlfetch, memcache, images, etc.) I doubt there is anything 
> useful to learn from how they perform on the dev server that can be applied 
> to the production server. Anything that requires an RPC is going to run far 
> too differently on the dev server. I think all we could really compare is 
> how pure Python code runs.
>
> Your index example is very likely due to the fact that the simulated 
> datastore does not have the same performance characteristics as the 
> production datastore. The underlying storage system is completely 
> different. If you are not currently using the SQLite backend on the dev 
> server give that a try. In my experience it performs much better than the 
> default one.
>
> For my tests I was just going to run some processing and memory IO 
> intensive operations and see how they compare. Will this give me any 
> insight into how to better optimize for the production server? Probably 
> not. But, as with getting GAE running on the Pi in the first place, I don't 
> really have any lofty goals with this and I am just curious.
>
> - Bryce
>
>
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:41:04 PM UTC-7, Robert Fischer wrote:
>>
>> I love my Raspberry Pi and think this is a neat idea!
>>
>> While an interesting project to benchmark the dev_appserver vs an F1 
>> instance I'm not sure how to accurately measure performance. What tests do 
>> you have in mind?
>>
>> The reason I ask is that I have a **very** index happy application and 
>> running request on my dev_appserver server (to save hundreds of entities 
>> each creating 20+ indexes) it basically locks up the dev_appserver on my 
>> quad core desktop and takes over 100 times longer to finish the DB 
>> operations than an F1 instance takes.
>>
>> Similarly, another intense thing I do to my app is to spawn a LOT of 
>> tasks at my backend which spend most of their time waiting on urlfetch 
>> responses before doing something trivial. On the dev_appserver these 
>> requests seem to be blocking and processed serially but in production they 
>> are processed simultaneously.
>>
>> I'm curious how you plan to benchmark the raspberry pi dev_appserver vs 
>> the production stack.
>>
>> -Robert Fischer
>> www.DealScorcher.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Bryce Cutt  wrote:
>>
>>> Some of you are probably aware of the Raspberry Pi single board 
>>> computer that 
>>> runs Linux and Python quite well. When I first heard of it I had lots of 
>>> ideas of what to use it for and one of those was to run App Engine on it. 
>>> Why? Because I can. :)
>>>
>>> My Raspberry Pi arrived in the mail yesterday and today I got the Python 
>>> App Engine SDK running on it. The Pi has a 700Mhz ARM processor and 256MB 
>>> of RAM and my small Debian (Raspbian) install has about 190MBs of RAM free 
>>> once it is up and running. I am not running a desktop environment, just 
>>> bash.
>>>
>>> My initial tests have worked out pretty well with simple apps and as 
>>> time allows I am going to try building a larger app and deploying to the 
>>> production servers directly from the Pi. I am curious how the performance 
>>> compares to a standard F1 App Engine production instance. I may run some 
>>> tests to see.
>>>
>>> The Raspberry Pi was developed as an inexpensive device to help teach 
>>> kids how to program. App Engine is a great platform for developing web 
>>> applications. I think it is a good match at an incredibly low 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/-/14lnjwk1RQEJ.
>>> To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> google-appengi...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com

[google-appengine] Re: Possible error in the documentation?

[Anand Mistry]

Yes. Please file a bug.

On Monday, 27 August 2012 04:05:52 UTC+10, Attila-Mihaly Balazs wrote:
>
> I believe that the following example is incorrect in the documentation [1]:
>
> app = ndb.toplevel(webapp.WSGIApplication)([('/', MainPage)])
>
> It sees to me that the correct way to write this would be:
>
> app = ndb.toplevel(webapp.WSGIApplication([('/', MainPage)]))
>
> Otherwise it just wraps the class, not the actual instance of it and while 
> it seems to work, it can lead to silent corruptions (dropping of async 
> tasks).
>
> Am I correct in this assumption? Should I file a bug for this?
>
> Thanks,
> Attila
>
> [1] https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/python/ndb/async
>
>

-- 
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/-/0XwFYJnIhWAJ.
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: Weird Instance Scheduler

[Johan Euphrosine]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Mobicage  wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can somebody explain how it is possible that
> - I have 1 "resident" java appengine instance
> - I didnt send any test requests for 90 minutes
> - When I sent the request, the system had to warm up, although I have 1
> resident java appengine.
>
> What does resident exactly mean?

I believe Jon described resident in great details in this thread:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/nRtzGtG9790/hLS16qux_04J

"""
Because the scheduler is now treating the reserved instances as
Min-Idle-Instances, what you're describing is expected
behavior. They are intentionally kept idle, and it tries to serve
traffic using the non-reserved instances. Then, if the
non-reserved instances can't keep up, then it will make use of
the reserved instances.
That is, to repeat, the invariant that the scheduler is trying to
maintain here is that your app has at least 3 idle instances.
And if an instance is getting traffic, then it isn't idle. The value
of an idle instance is that it can process requests right-away
if needed, without having to first warmup or do a loading request.

It sounds like what you'd really prefer is something like
Min-Instances, but that's not presently an available option.
"""

The scheduler route traffic to resident idle instance when dynamic
instances can't keep with the traffic and always try to keep Min Idle
Instances in reserve at all times,

I believe it currently need to start at least 1 dynamic instance before
making use of the resident idle capacity.

> My settings are:
> * Idle Instances: ( 1 – 1 )
> * Pending latency: (Automatic - 500ms)
>
> Logs (blanked out some stuff with xxx):
>
> 2012-08-24 22:14:43.786 /xxx 200 8872ms 0kb AppEngine-Google;
> (+http://code.google.com/appengine; appid: s~xxx)
> 0.1.0.40 - - [24/Aug/2012:15:14:43 -0700] "POST /xxx HTTP/1.1" 200 793 -
> "AppEngine-Google; (+http://code.google.com/appengine; appid: s~xxx)"
> "xxx.appspot.com" ms=8873 cpu_ms=5157 cpm_usd=0.89 loading_request=1
> instance=00c61b117c1360f2e8f3cdce153a3c79777a7e81
>
> I 2012-08-24 22:14:43.786
> This request caused a new process to be started for your application, and
> thus caused your application code to be loaded for the first time. This
> request may thus take longer and use more CPU than a typical request for
> your application.
>
> 2012-08-24 20:46:47.635 /xxx 200 1862ms 0kb AppEngine-Google;
> (+http://code.google.com/appengine)
> 0.1.0.2 - - [24/Aug/2012:13:46:47 -0700] "POST /xxx HTTP/1.1" 200 0 "xxx"
> "AppEngine-Google; (+http://code.google.com/appengine)" "xxx.appspot.com"
> ms=1863 cpu_ms=260 cpm_usd=0.000260 queue_name=default
> task_name=9251619801338774487
> instance=00c61b117c266e667e6954feaef8bf2492f23006
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:58:44 PM UTC+2, Mos wrote:
>>
>> Does anybody else experience abnormal behavior of the instance-scheduler
>> the last three weeks (the last 7 days it got even worse)?  (Java / HRD)
>> Or does anybody has profound knowledge about it?
>>
>> Background:  My application is unchanged for weeks, configuration not
>> changed and application's traffic is constant.
>> Traffic: One request per minute from Pingdom and around 200 additional
>> pageviews the day (== around 1500 pageviews the day). The peek is not more
>> then 3-4 request per minute.
>>
>> It's very obvious that one instance should be enough for my application.
>> And that was almost the case the last months!
>>
>> But now GAE creates most of the time 3 instances, whereby on has a long
>> life-time for days and the other ones are restarted around
>> 10 to 30 times the day.
>> Because load request takes between 30s to 40s  and requests are waiting
>> for loading instances, there are many request that
>> fail  (Users and Pingdom agree: A request that takes more then a couple of
>> seconds is a failed request!)
>>
>> Please check the attached screenshots that show the behavior!
>>
>> Note:
>> - Killing instances manually did not help
>> - Idle Instances were ( Automatic – 2 ) .  Changing it to whatever didn't
>> not change anything; e.g. like ( Automatic – 4 )
>>
>> Thanks and Cheers
>> Mos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> 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/-/YT9dk2OEsg8J.
>
> 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.



-- 
Johan Euphrosine (proppy)
Developer Programs Engineer
Google Developer Relations

-- 
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-ap

Re: [google-appengine] Weird Instance Scheduler

[Johan Euphrosine]

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Kristopher Giesing
 wrote:
> On Friday, August 24, 2012 2:59:11 PM UTC-7, Johan Euphrosine (Google)
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2012 11:28 PM, "Mos"  wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks Johan. I read the post some days before.
>> >
>> > As often discussed on the mailing-list before and as Jeff said in this
>> > thread.
>> > It's the combination of "Requests should never be sent to cold
>> > instances."
>>
>> Please star this existing feature request:
>> http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=7865
>
> Done.
>
>>
>> > and(!) the behavior of min idle instance which doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> Like Jon explained in the post I linked, the scheduler will favor routing
>> traffic to idle dynamic instance rather than idle reserved idle instance and
>> it will always try to maintain the invariant of N x Min-Idle-Instances by
>> starting new instance if the reserved instances are busy.
>
> OK, the post by Jon was an interesting read because it explains why Google
> seems to think everything is working as intended.  What doesn't seem to be
> penetrating is that it doesn't matter what some definition on a piece of
> paper somewhere says the system is supposed to do, if that definition
> doesn't actually help developers build good products.

It does penetrate and we do value feedbacks from the community on the scheduler.

What I was trying to point by referring to Jon post was:
- Here is how the scheduler has been designed
- If you disagree with the design, the group is a good place to
discuss this but ultimately we would like to reach the point where
more specific feature requests are filled (like
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=7865) that
we can escalate to the engineering team.

> The feature starred above absolutely needs to be implemented.  I just wish
> there was an easier way of getting customers who are frustrated by the
> instancing behavior to focus on that one feature request, because the naive
> interpretation of the existing GAE tuning parameters suggests it shouldn't
> be necessary.

I agree we must do a better job at documenting the current scheduler
behavior, care to star this feature request? :)
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5826

>
> - Kris
>
> --
> 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/-/w3m3ZmnH18cJ.
>
> 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.



-- 
Johan Euphrosine (proppy)
Developer Programs Engineer
Google Developer Relations

-- 
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] Send videos to a specific account?

[Mateus Lopes]

[translate]
I'm from Brazil, but there is no support for us.

What I want to know:

How do I upload the video that is done only for a specific account?

example

* User access my website
* Access to care of him referring to my website
* Send a video to YouTube
* >> This video goes to a YouTube account default for all users.
(I specify the account that receives all videos that are submitted)

My goal is to build a portal on a topic, I will have multiple partners, they 
will upload the same YouTube account.
[/translate]
[portuguese]Sou do Brasil, mas não há suporte para nós.

O que desejo saber:

Como eu faço para que o Upload do video seja feito somente para uma conta 
especifica ?

exemplo

* Usuário acessa meu website
* Acessa a conta dele referente ao meu website
* Envia um video para o YouTube
>> * Este video vai para uma conta no YouTube padrão para todos os usuários.
(a conta que eu especifico recebe todos os videos que forem enviados)

Meu objetivo é montar um portal sobre um tema, terei vários parceiros, estes 
vão fazer upload na mesma conta do YouTube.
[/portuguese]

-- 
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/-/86H18WKBTYcJ.
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] App Engine G+ hangout - Mon, 27th Aug., 9:30amPDT - load testing and performance tips

[Amy Unruh]

There will be an App Engine G+ hangout tomorrow, Monday, 27th Aug., at
9:30am Pacific time (16:30 UTC).

We'll cover some best practices for load testing on App Engine. In
addition, we'll cover some performance tips and, of course, your live
questions.

Visit this Google Developers live event page to find the hangout when it
starts up:

https://developers.google.com/live/shows/ahNzfmdvb2dsZS1kZXZlbG9wZXJzcg4LEgVFdmVudBjGrqkDDA/
Submit questions via Google Moderator:
https://www.google.com/moderator/#15/e=1faeac&t=1faeac.4d

Find out when the hangout starts in your time zone: http://goo.gl/P6QSX
Subscribe to calendar events for these hangouts here: http://goo.gl/GGkgx ,
http://goo.gl/PILq0 .

We hope you can join us!

 -Amy

-- 
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: Weird Instance Scheduler

[Mobicage]

Hi

Can somebody explain how it is possible that
- I have 1 "resident" java appengine instance
- I didnt send any test requests for 90 minutes
- When I sent the request, the system had to warm up, although I have 1 
resident java appengine.

What does resident exactly mean?
My settings are:
* Idle Instances: ( 1 – 1 )
* Pending latency: (Automatic - 500ms)

Logs (blanked out some stuff with xxx):

2012-08-24 22:14:43.786 /xxx 200 8872ms 0kb AppEngine-Google; 
(+http://code.google.com/appengine; appid: s~xxx)
0.1.0.40 - - [24/Aug/2012:15:14:43 -0700] "POST /xxx HTTP/1.1" 200 793 - 
"AppEngine-Google; (+http://code.google.com/appengine; appid: s~xxx)" 
"xxx.appspot.com" ms=8873 cpu_ms=5157 cpm_usd=0.89 loading_request=1 
instance=00c61b117c1360f2e8f3cdce153a3c79777a7e81

I 2012-08-24 22:14:43.786
This request caused a new process to be started for your application, and 
thus caused your application code to be loaded for the first time. This 
request may thus take longer and use more CPU than a typical request for 
your application.

2012-08-24 20:46:47.635 /xxx 200 1862ms 0kb AppEngine-Google; 
(+http://code.google.com/appengine)
0.1.0.2 - - [24/Aug/2012:13:46:47 -0700] "POST /xxx HTTP/1.1" 200 0 "xxx" 
"AppEngine-Google; (+http://code.google.com/appengine)" "xxx.appspot.com" 
ms=1863 cpu_ms=260 cpm_usd=0.000260 queue_name=default 
task_name=9251619801338774487 
instance=00c61b117c266e667e6954feaef8bf2492f23006
 
Thank you!


On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:58:44 PM UTC+2, Mos wrote:
>
> Does anybody else experience abnormal behavior of the instance-scheduler 
> the last three weeks (the last 7 days it got even worse)?  (Java / HRD)
> Or does anybody has profound knowledge about it?
>
> Background:  My application is unchanged for weeks, configuration not 
> changed and application's traffic is constant.
> Traffic: One request per minute from Pingdom and around 200 additional 
> pageviews the day (== around 1500 pageviews the day). The peek is not more 
> then 3-4 request per minute.
>
> It's very obvious that one instance should be enough for my application. 
> And that was almost the case the last months!
>
> But now GAE creates most of the time 3 instances, whereby on has a long 
> life-time for days and the other ones are restarted around
> 10 to 30 times the day. 
> Because load request takes between 30s to 40s  and requests are waiting 
> for loading instances, there are many request that
> fail  (Users and Pingdom agree: *A request that takes more then a couple 
> of seconds is a failed request!*)
>
> Please check the attached screenshots that show the behavior!
>
> Note:
> - Killing instances manually did not help
> - Idle Instances were ( Automatic – 2 ) .  Changing it to whatever didn't 
> not change anything; e.g. like ( Automatic – 4 )
>
> Thanks and Cheers
> Mos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/-/YT9dk2OEsg8J.
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] Possible error in the documentation?

[Attila-Mihaly Balazs]

I believe that the following example is incorrect in the documentation [1]:

app = ndb.toplevel(webapp.WSGIApplication)([('/', MainPage)])

It sees to me that the correct way to write this would be:

app = ndb.toplevel(webapp.WSGIApplication([('/', MainPage)]))

Otherwise it just wraps the class, not the actual instance of it and while it 
seems to work, it can lead to silent corruptions (dropping of async tasks).

Am I correct in this assumption? Should I file a bug for this?

Thanks,
Attila

[1] https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/python/ndb/async

-- 
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/-/LEpixdZV6rQJ.
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] java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: com.google.common.collect.ImmutableSet.copyOf([Ljava/lang/Object;)Lcom/google/common/collect/ImmutableSet;

[WIZPROTO]

Hi All,


I'm working with Google Spread sheet API, Its worked well on local dev box, but 
if deployed on GAE getting below error:  


java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: 
com.google.common.collect.ImmutableSet.copyOf([Ljava/lang/Object;)Lcom/google/common/collect/ImmutableSet;

-- 
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/-/LiE6gmJCXg4J.
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] Supported languages and development methods

[Hain45]

Hello and good day to all of you.

I wouldn't normally start a thread without first rigorously searching 
through a group to see if somebody else has asked the 'exact' same question 
before (turns out that a lot of times, they have), but I haven't found such 
a question yet for Google App Engine.

My question is:

Can you use Google App Engine to host web/mobile apps that are built using 
only HTML, CSS and JS (with/without database interaction) ?

According to what I've come across recently, it is just as easy and 
powerful to build an app for a mobile/smartphone or PC using HTML5, CSS3 
and JavaScript as it would be to use a language like Python or Java (some 
people may have gripes about such a suggestion, but realistically speaking, 
a lot can be done with those languages).

It also seems that using HTML and JS can actually make cross-platform 
development much easier than starting scratch for each new platform(which 
is why services like "phonegap" are popular).

Hopefully somebody experienced in using the GAE services will be able to 
assist with this answer (as I am sure a ton of developers will probably 
have this exact question in the future - when cross-platform development 
does become very popular).

I am also asking this before I sign-up to GAE, as it may turn out that 
HTML, CSS and JS development is not suitable for the GAE services and maybe 
another option developers can consider is the AWS-free option (which seems 
as though it can handle any development).

I look forward to hearing from you guys soon.

-- 
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/-/7ip3QztaCN0J.
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] Weird Instance Scheduler

[Jeff Schnitzer]

Free apps have limited controls - perhaps you haven't enabled billing
on the test app?

Jeff

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Kristopher Giesing
 wrote:
> Hi Takashi,
>
> I created a new GAE app to test this and found that I'm not getting the same
> instance tuning controls in the new app ID that I am getting in my current
> one.
>
> In my current app, I can set both min and max idle instances, and min and
> max pending latency.
>
> In the new app, I can set only max idle instances, and min pending latency.
>
> Any ideas why this would be the case?  It complicates the process of setting
> up a good testbed for this.
>
> - Kris
>
> On Friday, August 24, 2012 7:59:17 PM UTC-7, Takashi Matsuo (Google) wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mos  wrote:
>>>
>>> > Setting Max Pending Latency doesn't force requests to be in the pending
>>> > queue for the specified time. Please use Min Pending Latency instead.
>>>
>>> As you know my setting to "Min Pending Latency" was automatic. The
>>> expectation is that GAE takes a reasonable default latency if it is
>>> "automatic".
>>> And you say:  Every parallel request starts a new instance if it is
>>> "automatic"? That' would be a "Min Pending Latency" of zero and not
>>> "automatic".
>>>
>>> > If it doesn't work, try 2 min idle instances then
>>>
>>> Please check the responses of other user in this thread.  This feature is
>>> totally broken and can not be used.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> And around the 16th august?
>>> > Sigh... isn't it a waist of time? What is the reason you picked that
>>> > date?
>>>
>>> Did you see/studied my pictures from the first post of this thread?
>>> The statistic shows that on this date the instance creation gets crazy.
>>> I double checked it with the Pingdom reports.
>>> Starting on this day there were even more downtimes.
>>>
>>> > So I'd say please try 2. If you still saw the user-facing loading
>>> > requests, you need more resident instance to eliminate the user-facing
>>> > loading requests.
>>>
>>> Again: As wrote in my post before that does not work. Check the responses
>>> from Kristopher and Jeff on this thread.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, it's very nice to hear concrete examples from Kristopher and Jeff,
>> other than just saying "I've tried that, but it didn't work".
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > So what is your expected behavior and actual result? Nobody in our team
>>> > can do anything if you just keep saying "the setting that used to work
>>> > doesn't work anymore" without trying mu suggestion.
>>> > I think my answer is clear at least for some points. 1) You'd better
>>> > use 'min pending latency' instead of 'max pending latency' to prevent new
>>> > instances to spin up as much as possible. 2) If you need longer instance
>>> > lives, set appropriate number of min idle instances.
>>>
>>> As I wrote: I tried different settings. As many other people in this
>>> group as well.
>>> Me and other people are reporting: The settings are broken!
>>> It's very easy to reproduce. Please set up an application, send one
>>> request per minute (or second), configure 1 or 2 or 3 min idle instances and
>>> check what is happening. You will see that new  instances are started
>>> although resistant instances are available.
>>
>>
>> It's nice if we have a complete reproducible case. I've just started an
>> experiment you mentioned. This time, it's just a helloworld application, and
>> I set 1 min idle instances and 1 minutes cron.
>>
>> Presumably it will just work fine. Then I will try with slightly different
>> condition. That way, I hope I can determine what kind of condition could be
>> the culprit or not. What do you think? Can you provide some simple projects
>> for that experiment?
>>
>>>
>>> Please take it serious and let somebody of the engineers check this!
>>
>>
>> (I'm one of the engineers btw) A reproducible case is always the best
>> thing to get engineers' attention.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -- Takashi
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Mos
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Takashi Matsuo 
>>> wrote:


 Hi Mos,

 On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Mos  wrote:
>
> Hello Takashi,
>
>
> > Actually there were almost 8 requests in a second. So App Engine
> > likely needed more than one instance at this particular moment.
>
> I thought this is why GAE has the concept of "pending-latency"  (which
> we discussed below).
> Meaning:  Incoming requests may wait up to 15 seconds before starting a
> new instance. Therefore when 8 requests in one second occur that
> should not mean that more instance needs to be started. Especially if
> there is no other traffic in this minute, as seen in my example.
> Otherwise it would be a very bad implementation:
> Starting a new instance means around 30s waiting time.  Serving 8
> parallel requests from one instance, would result in a maximum of
> 8 seconds for the last request (assuming that each request takes around
> 1 second).
> T

Re: [google-appengine] Weird Instance Scheduler

[Kristopher Giesing]

Hi Takashi,

I created a new GAE app to test this and found that I'm not getting the 
same instance tuning controls in the new app ID that I am getting in my 
current one.

In my current app, I can set both min and max idle instances, and min and 
max pending latency.

In the new app, I can set only max idle instances, and min pending latency.

Any ideas why this would be the case?  It complicates the process of 
setting up a good testbed for this.

- Kris

On Friday, August 24, 2012 7:59:17 PM UTC-7, Takashi Matsuo (Google) wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mos  >wrote:
>
>>  > Setting Max Pending Latency doesn't force requests to be in the 
>> pending queue for the specified time. Please use Min Pending Latency 
>> instead.
>>
>> As you know my setting to "Min Pending Latency" was automatic. The 
>> expectation is that GAE takes a reasonable default latency if it is 
>> "automatic".
>> And you say:  Every parallel request starts a new instance if it is 
>> "automatic"? That' would be a "Min Pending Latency" of zero and not 
>> "automatic".
>>
>> > If it doesn't work, try 2 min idle instances then
>>
>> Please check the responses of other user in this thread.  This feature is 
>> totally broken and can not be used.
>
>
>>
>> >> And around the 16th august?  
>>  > Sigh... isn't it a waist of time? What is the reason you picked that 
>> date? 
>>
>> Did you see/studied my pictures from the first post of this thread?
>> The statistic shows that on this date the instance creation gets crazy.  
>> I double checked it with the Pingdom reports.
>> Starting on this day there were even more downtimes.
>>
>> > So I'd say please try 2. If you still saw the user-facing loading 
>> requests, you need more resident instance to eliminate the user-facing 
>> loading requests.
>>
>> Again: As wrote in my post before that does not work. Check the responses 
>> from Kristopher and Jeff on this thread.
>>
>>
> Yeah, it's very nice to hear concrete examples from Kristopher and Jeff, 
> other than just saying "I've tried that, but it didn't work".
>  
>
>>
>> > So what is your expected behavior and actual result? Nobody in our 
>> team can do anything if you just keep saying "the setting that used to work 
>> doesn't work anymore" without trying mu suggestion.
>> > I think my answer is clear at least for some points. 1) You'd better 
>> use 'min pending latency' instead of 'max pending latency' to prevent new 
>> instances to spin up as much as possible. 2) If you need longer instance 
>> lives, set appropriate number of min idle instances.
>>
>> As I wrote: I tried different settings. As many other people in this 
>> group as well.
>> Me and other people are reporting: The settings are broken!
>> It's very easy to reproduce. Please set up an application, send one 
>> request per minute (or second), configure 1 or 2 or 3 min idle instances 
>> and check what is happening. You will see that new  instances are started 
>> although resistant instances are available.
>>
>
> It's nice if we have a complete reproducible case. I've just started an 
> experiment you mentioned. This time, it's just a helloworld application, 
> and I set 1 min idle instances and 1 minutes cron.
>
> Presumably it will just work fine. Then I will try with slightly different 
> condition. That way, I hope I can determine what kind of condition could be 
> the culprit or not. What do you think? Can you provide some simple projects 
> for that experiment?
>
>
>> Please take it serious and let somebody of the engineers check this!
>>
>
> (I'm one of the engineers btw) A reproducible case is always the best 
> thing to get engineers' attention.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Takashi
>
>
>> Cheers
>> Mos 
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Takashi Matsuo 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mos,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Mos 
>>> > wrote:
>>>
 Hello Takashi,


 > Actually there were almost 8 requests in a second. So App Engine 
 likely needed more than one instance at this particular moment.

 I thought this is why GAE has the concept of "pending-latency"  (which 
 we discussed below).
 Meaning:  Incoming requests may wait up to 15 seconds before starting a 
 new instance. Therefore when 8 requests in one second occur that
 should not mean that more instance needs to be started. Especially if 
 there is no other traffic in this minute, as seen in my example.
 Otherwise it would be a very bad implementation:
 Starting a new instance means around 30s waiting time.  Serving 8 
 parallel requests from one instance, would result in a maximum of
 8 seconds for the last request (assuming that each request takes around 
 1 second).
 There is no reason for this concrete example to fire up more instances 
 and let requests wait more then 30 seconds until a new instance is loaded.

>>>
>>> Do you really read my e-mail?
>>>  
>>> Setting Max Pending Latency doesn't force requests

[google-appengine] Third Party Libraries

[Aman G]

Can Some one Let me know How to Include Third party Library in Python Code 
Over GAE as I am unable to.
I am also using clientcookie beautifulsoup etc as a screen scaper project.
Does GAE support that.
Any tutorials or books or write up can be suggested would be Appreciated.
 

-- 
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/-/WeUxaJyFdnAJ.
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] Hi server ip using Google App

[Barry Hunter]

These providers are of interest to spammers, one of the reasons for the
charge is to deter spammers.

So if gapps offered this too they would have to charge. In which case you
may as well just use one of them.
On Aug 26, 2012 1:24 AM, "katie"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Can Google app work the same way as some of these providers?
>
> 4SecureMail $39.99 (United States)
> Neomailbox $49.95 (Switzerland)
> Hushmail $49.98 (United Kingdom)
> CounterMail $59 (Sweden)
>
> The problem is that an attacker is Ddosing our server directly with over
> 14g/s. He gets our direct server ip from the emails we send using google
> app. I read about this topic and it suggests providers like countermail so
> our server ip does not appear when sending emails.
>
> http://www.raymond.cc/blog/hide-sender-ip-address-in-email-headers/
>
> Why doesn't Google app have something like this to secure customers at the
> server level? And if there is, can someone please point me to the correct
> direction?
>
> --
> 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/-/KIm2mTzmod0J.
> 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] do the admin recipients cost same as the external recipients ?

[Barry Hunter]

Just call a HTTP API and be done with it.

Going via email introduces more moving parts into the system, and if you
think about it your application reciving an email ends in a HTTP API
anyway. Email will also be more work to secure (generally)
On Aug 26, 2012 10:32 AM, "Mihai"  wrote:

> We are looking to use the admin emails as an internal communication
> channel between apps so the cost is important to decide whether to develop
> a REST API or just use the email service.
>
> --
> 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/-/bRTW9v0ZhN0J.
> 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: Notice: Google App Engine Conversion API to be decommissioned in November 2012

[Daniel Florey]

Can you please give an exact date when the API will be switched off?
We are using it in some of our apps and rely on it heavily - as I've not 
expected that this great feature will not make it into production some day.
We need to implement a proper replacement, so it would be great to get some 
more time.
What about keeping it running until the end of the year?
We are planning to implement a replacement running on Google Compute 
Engine. Hopefully this is not the next service to be doomed ;-)
Stay tuned.

Daniel


On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:16:48 PM UTC+2, Christina Ilvento wrote:
>
> In November, 2012, we will be decommissioning the Experimental Conversion 
> API . In 
> the 1.7.1 release, the API will be marked as “decommissioned” in our 
> documentation, and starting the first release after November 1, the 
> Conversion API will no longer be supported in the App Engine SDK or 
> runtimes.
>
> One of the great things about App Engine is our ability to quickly release 
> and iterate on new Experimental features. But sometimes a feature doesn’t 
> get the developer adoption and momentum needed to justify providing it as a 
> fully supported feature with a continued maintenance commitment. The 
> Conversion API is one of those features.
>
> We are committed to providing a well-maintained, fully-supported platform 
> and we will continue to focus on providing high value features for our 
> developers. If you have any concerns or questions, please don’t hesitate to 
> contact us at *google-app-engine-conversion-api-decommission-questions**@
> google.com*.
>
> Thank you for your continued support of App Engine.
>
>
> Regards,
> Christina Ilvento, Product Manager for the App Engine Conversion 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/-/7yjwsKFETu4J.
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 with mail quota

[Al Murauski]

I've submitted an Issue for this problem. Please, star it if you face the 
same problem:

http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=8017

Than you!

-- 
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/-/gHsbhKtC4BwJ.
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: paid email quota

[Al Murauski]

I've submitted an Issue for this problem. Please, star it if you face the 
same problem:

http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=8017

Than you!

-- 
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/-/LIjx5O4i8YgJ.
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 with mail quota

[Al Murauski]

The same problem after migrating to HRD and enabling billing. My app id is 
alconst-nitro-hrd.

To Support: Please, clear a charge or whatever, but make the app send 
emails This is very disappointing the app cannot send emails!

-- 
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/-/CgobmC5ZAywJ.
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: paid email quota

[Al Murauski]

The same problem!

I've migrated my app to HRD, enabled billing and now facing 100 emails 
limitation. This is truly bad...

-- 
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/-/Ud6mmnIu19cJ.
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] Activate again when trying to register second application?

[Sven Bendel]

Thanks a lot, works great now! :)

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 2:13:17 AM UTC+2, Takashi Matsuo (Google) wrote:
>
>
> Hi Sven,
>
> You should be good to go now. Enjoy!
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Sven Bendel 
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've already successfully registered for a GAE account and registered my 
>> first application. Now I wanted to register a second one - however, I'm 
>> asked for account activation via phone again. And I can't use the number I 
>> used before because... well, it has already been used^^ Don't know, if this 
>> has something to do with the fact, that I changed my email address from @
>> googlemail.com to @gmail.com after I had registered the first 
>> application. Does anyone have a solution for this kind of problem?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Sven
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/-/EqqaOLdbMl4J.
>> To post to this group, send email to 
>> google-a...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> google-appengi...@googlegroups.com .
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Takashi Matsuo | Developers Advocate | tma...@google.com 
>
>  

-- 
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/-/QqEcmw21sBsJ.
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] do the admin recipients cost same as the external recipients ?

[Mihai]

We are looking to use the admin emails as an internal communication channel 
between apps so the cost is important to decide whether to develop a REST 
API or just use the email service.

-- 
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/-/bRTW9v0ZhN0J.
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.