[google-appengine] Does Google App Engine support Spring @RestController

[Anders Vincent Lund]

I would like to try out Google App Engine. I have an application written in 
Spring MVC. My controllers look like this:



@RestController
@RequestMapping("/something")
public class Controller{


@RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.POST)
@ResponseStatus(value = HttpStatus.OK)
@Override
public void add(@RequestBody Input input) {
*// dostuff*
}

}



Is this possible to deploy on Google App Engine? I would really really like 
to avoid loosing this great abstraction and go back to stuff like this:

public void doGet(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp)

Is that possible or do I have to look at another hosting service?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/6215e747-1f68-45e3-8f97-99be3eb604e0%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[google-appengine] Cannot get https to work for custom domain

[anders . martensson]

I'm, trying to get SSL working for my custom domain.


http://myapp.com -> http://myapp.appspot.com, works ok
http://www.myapp.com -> http://myapp.appspot.com, works ok

https://myapp.appspot.com, works ok

https://myapp.com -> https://myapp.appspot.com, doesn't work
https://www.myapp.com -> https://myapp.appspot.com, doesn't work


I have 

- added and verified the domain myapp.com in Admin Console -> Domains
- setup that the GAE app should be available under 
https://myapp.appspot.com and the sub domain https://www.myapp.com in Admin 
Console -> App Engine Apps
- enabled SSL for my custom domain and uploaded the certificate in Admin 
Console -> Security
- enabled SNI and assigned https://www.myapp.com which matches the 
certificate above in Admin Console -> Security

I cannot see any errors anywhere.

Any ideas what may be wrong? Any more info needed?

Thanks in advance,
Anders

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[google-appengine] Removing item from a list property in an object not correctly updated.

[Jon Anders Sollien]

I have: 

Class MyObject {
List> relatedKeys;
}

Let us say my datastore contains a MyObject, which contains key (keyB) in 
"relatedKeys" 

Code:

public void removeKey(Key keyToMyObject, Key keyB) {
MyObject myObject = ofy().load().key(keyToMyObject).now();
assertTrue(myObject.relatedKeys.size() == 1, "Error");
myObject.relatedKeys.remove(keyB);
ofy().save().entity(myObject).now();
 
// And just to be sure
assertTrue(ofy().load().key(keyToMyObject).now().relatedKeys.size() == 
0, "Error");
}

// Next, I do a new API-call which loads the object again

MyObject myObject = ofy().load().key(keyToMyObject).now();

// Sometimes, myObject still contains keyB in the list. But what is really 
strange is that the object in the Development Console is correct 
(relatedKeys is empty)
// It does not help if i try to reload the query. The only thing that helps 
is to run removeKey again

Am I doing something wrong? Is the Development console loading entities in 
another way, since the datas there are correct?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Strong and eventuall consitency vs performance

[Jon Anders Sollien]

My mistake. What I meant was: B. 
ofy().load().type(MyClass.class).filter("anotherParent = 
", anotherParentKey).filter("firstName = ", firstName)

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 7:51:27 AM UTC+1, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
>
> I wasn't quite sure what Q2.B is trying to do with 
> "filter(anotherParentKey)" since that won't actually compile, but: 
>
> Queries with ancestor() are by default strongly consistent. Even if 
> they include other filters. 
>
> If you explicitly specify eventual consistency on an ancestor() query, 
> I would expect it to have similar performance to a (inherently 
> eventually consistent) non-ancestor query. However, you should always 
> run your own performance tests. 
>
> Jeff 
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Jon Anders Sollien 
> > wrote: 
> > Some data loads in my application are depending on being strongly 
> consitent, 
> > others are not. 
> > 
> > In 
> > 
> https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/queries#Java_Ancestor_queries
>  
> > I read: Setting an ancestor filter allows for strongly consistent 
> queries. 
> > Queries without an ancestor filter only return eventually consistent 
> > results. 
> > 
> > Lets say I have a class 
> > MyClass.class { 
> > @Parent Key parent; 
> > @Index Key anotherParent; 
> > @Index String firstName; 
> > } 
> > 
> > Question 1: Does this mean that queries with both ancestor limiter and 
> > filters are strongly consistent? Example: 
> > ofy().load().type(MyClass.class).ancestor(parentKey).filter("firstName = 
> > ",firstName); 
> > 
> > Question 2: In some other data loads, performance is more important. 
> Assume 
> > example "A" and "B". Will "A" have the same performance as "B"? 
> > 
> > A. 
> > 
> ofy().consistency(Consistency.EVENTUAL).load().type(MyClass.class).ancestor(parentKey).filter("firstName
>  
>
> > = ",firstName) 
> > B. 
> > 
> ofy().load().type(MyClass.class).filter(anotherParentKey).filter("firstName 
> > = ",firstName) 
> > 
> > Thank you in advance 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> > "Google App Engine" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an 
> > email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> > google-a...@googlegroups.com. 
>
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine. 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[google-appengine] Strong and eventuall consitency vs performance

[Jon Anders Sollien]

Some data loads in my application are depending on being 
strongly consitent, others are not.

In 
https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/queries#Java_Ancestor_queries
 
I read: Setting an ancestor 
filter
 allows 
for strongly consistent queries. Queries without an ancestor filter only 
return eventually consistent results.

Lets say I have a class 
MyClass.class {
@Parent Key parent;
@Index Key anotherParent;
@Index String firstName;
}

Question 1: Does this mean that queries with both ancestor limiter and 
filters are strongly consistent? Example: 
ofy().load().type(MyClass.class).ancestor(parentKey).filter("firstName = 
",firstName);

Question 2: In some other data loads, performance is more important. Assume 
example "A" and "B". Will "A" have the same performance as "B"?

A. 
ofy().consistency(Consistency.EVENTUAL).load().type(MyClass.class).ancestor(parentKey).filter("firstName
 
= ",firstName) 
B. 
ofy().load().type(MyClass.class).filter(anotherParentKey).filter("firstName 
= ",firstName)

Thank you in advance

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[google-appengine] Indexing in google app engine

[Jon Anders Sollien]

Hi, is there anyway I can determine which data transfer objects (dtos) are 
still being indexed? Like for example a list of unindexed dtos or a save 
method that finishes after succesfull indexing

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[google-appengine] Re: Early access to Page Speed Service for Google App Engine

[Anders]

You really need to fix the slow cold starts of GAE apps. It can take 10 
seconds to load a webpage that usually loads in a fraction of a second. See 
issue:  http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=7833 This 
seems 
to me something suitable for the Google Page Speed team to look into. The 
slow page load problem has come and gone for years for GAE.

On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:31:50 AM UTC+1, Ikai Lan (Google) wrote:
>
> Hey App Engine developers,
>
> We’re working on a new feature to help out your front-end development 
> efforts. We’ve been working with the Google Page Speed team (
> https://developers.google.com/pagespeed/service) to bring Page Speed 
> Service to your App Engine applications. When enabled, this feature will 
> analyze and rewrite pages served from your App Engine app such that they 
> load and render faster. A non-exhaustive list of some of the actions this 
> feature will automatically take care of are:
>
> - Compressing and minifying JavaScript
> - Serving static content off geographically disperse edge caches
> - Minimizing browser HTTP round trips
> - Minimizing payload size by optimizing images, rewriting CSS, etc. 
> - Optimize browser rendering by deferring JavaScript, image inlining, etc.
>
> The full list of rewriters provided by the page speed service can be found 
> here: 
> https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/pss/rewriters
>
> A quick analysis of some of the top App Engine applications demonstrated 
> an average render time improvement of 20%, though completely unoptimized 
> sites may experience a far more drastic impact. 
>  
> This sort of optimization is possible manually, though I’ve personally 
> found it to be fairly time consuming. We’re hoping this feature will help 
> developers launch faster so you can focus on building features instead of 
> tuning.
>
> You can sign up for early access to the feature here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEZQbjVwc2RuMXFjZ0RUTWtUY25SMWc6MQ
>
> We’ll start inviting waves of developers into the program March 26, 2012. 
> You’ll get access to a tool that’ll allow you to compare performance 
> optimized and unoptimized versions of your pages side by side, turning on 
> and off the service as needed. We’re very interesting in hearing your 
> feedback.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ikai
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/nTCdTcWUrqUJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] Issue after HRD migration: 100 email quota until first charge cleared

[Anders]

I did a migration of an old application to the high replication
datastore over the weekend. Everything looked fine at first but now I
am having an issue with the email quota.

Since the email quota is 100 emails before the first charge is cleared
and I just enabled billing on my new application I have to wait until
the end of the week (when the first charge is made) before I am able
to send out emails. Isn't there some way to be charged directly and
not wait for the end of the period?

Did anyone ran into the same issue and found a solution? I am sending
some thousand emails a day to customers so this was a very unfortunate
consequence of the migration.

-- 
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] over quota - google bots

[Anders]

I recently made a significant change in my app (python 2.5) when I had
to "collapse" many pages into one - hiding functionality for users
that had become unstable/unauthorized.  I am definitely a newbie to
how this would impact search engine bots, but basically a huge number
of pages all changed and got redirected to the same "you can't see
that anymore" type page.

Since this occurred, my stable and growing app of ~ 3yrs has
continually crashed with over quota errors - specifically read
requests.  My naive approach is to blacklist the ips of the bots
hitting the page so much, but this only temporarily fixes the problem
until a new bot does the same.

I saw the following encouraging post of a user that found a solution:

http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/3c91056b8be5c9a7/44a9baa0ef38a047?lnk=gst&q=over+quota+read+operations+by+google+bot#44a9baa0ef38a047

So it looks like I need to use memcache, something in the past I
hadn't needed/investigated how to use.

Any other quick fix solutions?  I need to keep the site up (and
affordable!) until I can put in the development time to relieve this
issue.

-- 
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: RE: [google-appengine] Re: Could I pay my GAE hosting fee from AdSense revenue?

[Anders]

Ok, so the cost for running the application should generally only be a tiny 
part of the revenue. At least for like an ordinary website. Sounds good, 
except the competition on the Web is extremely hard. But it's a relief to 
hear that only ad revenue will be enough in my case. I have heard stories 
about how ad revenue isn't enough but that was probably for newspaper 
websites and things like that who have a lot of other costs.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/vtHp-nAZGtEJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: GAE Vs AWS for JAVA: Any points I should cover?

[Anders]

It would be interesting to know how well AWS scales compared to GAE which 
scales automatically both in computing resources and data storage (without 
the customers having to manually configure the 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/-/qW4xlkNmNDQJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Could I pay my GAE hosting fee from AdSense revenue?

[Anders]

Wow. That's a huge profit margin. I'm using a bootstrapping business 
strategy using ad revenue. Maybe my worry about the new pricing has been 
totally overblown. Then marketing costs and things like that will likely be 
much larger than the cost for running the application on GAE. It's a bit 
tricky to know what the actual costs and revenues will be without having a 
lot of traffic yet.

-- 
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/-/XDvMq7Bpfa4J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 Google killing GAE?

[Anders]

Most likely when the cloud service market matures we will see a drop in 
prices. It's just that I want Google to be ahead of the curve and offer 
super competitive prices with the new pricing model. I'll bet the profit 
margins in cloud services today are enormous compared to more mature markets 
such as selling consumer electronics.

-- 
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/-/oCTsGM5OuF4J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 Google killing GAE?

[Anders]

I'm not saying that the price should be 1000 times lower after 10 years, but 
I do say that the price should be a lot lower after 10 years. Most people 
haven't grasped yet the exponential progress. Cloud service providers can 
use this lack of knowledge among the customer to rip them off, basically.

-- 
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/-/jnpNuBhyfsoJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: GAE pricing is not suited for smaller apps

[Anders]

Yes, could be that Google will keep investing in GAE, because it could have 
great future potential. Cloud computing WILL become huge, no doubt about 
that. Google making a strong investment in GAE would be really good. I love 
the simplicity and scalability of GAE. Maybe the new pricing is something 
some business managers at Google have come up with, above the heads of the 
developers, lol. :D Or the pricing may even turn out to be fair even though 
it looks a bit suspicious at face value.

-- 
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/-/Kr_SZ3e0oQ0J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Echo the sentiments of another poster

[Anders]

To be fair we don't know yet what the actual cost will be for frontend 
instances, but if the cost for the frontend instances becomes higher than 
100% of the total cost of the other quotas, then I would start worrying.

-- 
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/-/usEusi0Yk_YJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Echo the sentiments of another poster

[Anders]

*"What we tried was a platform where I dont have to worry about Instances 
and tuning the scheduler for costs."* -- very interesting quote

That's exactly what I have been writing in other threads. Google should work 
on the instances and the scheduler under the hood, and not use it to rip off 
the customers as other cloud service providers likely do. When big media 
starts to learn that cloud service companies have been ripping off their 
customers, then they will be marked as too greedy for the 21th century 
markets, resulting in a bad goodwill for those companies.

-- 
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/-/emE9T6qzQG4J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: GAE pricing is not suited for smaller apps

[Anders]

I wrote about the 3 years in another thread. My speculation is that this is 
a slow kill, because they can't make the kill obvious since media then would 
report a lot about how Google has failed with yet another product, this time 
in the important cloud computing space. And many existing customers would 
get outraged if they killed GAE too soon. So they let GAE die slowly by 
outrageous pricing and dwindling investment in the product, and instead they 
focus on cloud computing on higher abstraction levels such as Google Apps 
and Docs.

-- 
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/-/XrNSPe7C1r4J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: GAE pricing is not suited for smaller apps

[Anders]

I found this article: 
http://blog.labslice.com/2010/12/2010-cloud-computing-winner.html

It shows that GAE has a very tiny market share. Managers at Google may 
calculate that the market share for GAE will remain too low for them to 
invest much further in the product. I certainly hope my speculation is 
wrong, but it's good to plan for the worst.

-- 
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/-/3dK4o-ZrXe8J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: GAE pricing is not suited for smaller apps

[Anders]

Things like only one inequality match (such as less than or greater than) 
allowed in queries and no LIKE operator. The new full text search API may 
solve some of that.

-- 
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/-/MTZk8YGEqw4J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 Google killing GAE?

[Anders]

One example that the cloud providers have massive profit margins at the 
moment is an interview I watched where a CEO for a tech company said that 
they had moved from using Amazon cloud services (or some provider like that) 
to running their own data centers. And they cut their cost by an order of 
magnitude or some huge amount like that, maybe even much more than that 
(although I could be wrong). To me that's an indication of that cloud 
service providers today have way too excessive profit margins.

-- 
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/-/mFe4I3pf0LgJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 Google killing GAE?

[Anders]

3 years is what I meant by a slow kill. But I hope my speculation is wrong. 
Cloud services is a very young market. Compare with for example a company 
selling consumer electronics. Such company will have a tiny profit margin 
because the market is so mature. In cloud computing on the other hand, the 
cloud service providers can have monstrously large profit margins because 
it's a new market. However, in these days things happen very fast so the 
cloud providers will not be able to cling to those titanic profit margins 
for long.

-- 
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/-/j6YHmbPV4u8J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 Google killing GAE?

[Anders]

3 years is what I meant by a slow kill. But I hope my speculation is wrong. 
Cloud services is a very young market. Compare with for example a company 
selling consumer electronics. Such company will have a tiny profit margin 
because the market is so mature. In cloud computing however, the cloud 
service providers can have monstrously large profit margins because it's a 
new market. However, in these days things happens very fast so the cloud 
providers will not be able to cling to those titanic profit margins for 
long.

-- 
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/-/PlV57JPfBb4J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 Google killing GAE?

[Anders]

Whoa! I just found out that App Engine for Business is closed. See: 
http://code.google.com/appengine/business/

But they will move that service into ordinary App Engine, including SQL 
support. So hopefully Google will continue to run and develop App Engine. 
And drop the horrible price on frontend instances! He he.

-- 
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/-/v0AfA5tMtjMJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 Google killing GAE?

[Anders]

Often even generally well-informed customers are fooled by pricing models. 
One example is the failure to take into account the exponential progress of 
price/performance. The customers are happy when the price doesn't go up year 
after year. What they miss is that the actual cost for computing power, 
storage and communication is halved every year. So after 10 years the cost 
is 1000 times lower! Of course the cost is about more than just raw 
computing resources but with more and more automation this exponential 
progress should not be underestimated!

-- 
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/-/J8qgLui4__QJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Why app engine new price model is totally wrong

[Anders]

I have started a new thread about a possible reason for the higher prices: 
http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2F6WqUi10P8Yo%2Fdiscussion

Just a speculation, but you can check it out in case it has some truth to 
it.

-- 
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/-/4P1QfPDxdBAJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 Google killing GAE?

[Anders]

And at the same time Google is making a statement by setting a price on 
instances to show how other cloud providers are totally ripping off their 
customers by doing so.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/HXAlz3YiaPUJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] Is Google killing GAE?

[Anders]

I have started to suspect that Google on purpose is killing GAE. Because 
they know by now that they will not get enough large customers. See for 
example this article: 
http://blog.labslice.com/2010/12/2010-cloud-computing-winner.html which 
shows that GAE has a very tiny market share. I think the main reason is that 
the GAE datastore has too limited and non-standard functionality.

And they don't kill GAE immediately because that would not only make many 
existing customers very angry but also media would then report about how 
Google has failed with yet another product, and this time in the important 
cloud computing space. Not good. So they make a slow kill and hope it will 
go under the radar of big media.

-- 
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/-/S2dKjtl2aEsJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: GAE pricing is not suited for smaller apps

[Anders]

It depends on what you mean by small. Many apps will still be able to run 
for free on GAE. But yeah, as soon as an app goes beyond the free quotas 
then the pricing may be way too high.

And companies developing larger applications may not want to use GAE because 
of the limited datastore functionality. So I'm not sure exactly what kind of 
customers Google is targeting with GAE. To speculate a bit: Yikes, maybe 
Google now has too few large customers and that they now on purpose have 
chosen to kill GAE, because they see that they will never have enough large 
customers whatever they do and whatever price model they use.

-- 
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/-/QAsV9dqJpeoJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] frontend instance specs

[Anders]

Also, another indication that too many frontend instances are sharing the 
same physical server is that I have noticed that even with low traffic the 
scheduler usually starts many instances. What should easily be handled by 
one frontend instance is handled by a whole bunch of instances, and we as 
customers will have to pay for that! It's completely outrageous unless I 
have missed something.

-- 
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/-/hut_EwVkVOAJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] frontend instance specs

[Anders]

Also, another indication that too many frontend instances are sharing the 
same physical server is that I have noticed that even with low traffic the 
scheduler usually starts many instances. What should easily be handled by 
one frontend instance is handled but a whole bunch of instances, and we as 
customers will have to pay for that! It's completely outrageous unless I 
have missed something.

-- 
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/-/8xRrea3AHkoJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] frontend instance specs

[Anders]

 1.2 Ghz Intel single core? What about time sharing? I suspect Google 
squeezes in a lot of instances in each physical server, so that with time 
sharing of the CPU the instances in reality get a lot less than that when 
the load is high, and judging by how often instances are swapped in and out 
of servers, it means that there are way too few physical servers to handle 
the practical load.

Compare with a virtual memory. If there is too little physical memory, the 
page swapping algorithm, no matter how good it is, will have to do a LOT of 
swapping of memory pages. And what do we see the GAE instance scheduler do? 
A LOT of instance swapping.

Not only that, we as customers have to pay a large part of that page 
swapping, plus poor performance when the traffic to the application is low. 
AND, much if not most of the actual specs for the instances is kept hidden 
from us customers. So it's very hard to tell what we actually will be paying 
for, plus Google can change the specs at any time without adjusting the 
price model. It's opaque as hell.

-- 
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/-/TkMn50YXrhoJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Why app engine new price model is totally wrong

[Anders]

Ok, sorry about that. But one thing to remember is that SQL is much more 
powerful than the GAE datastore when it comes to functionality which would 
demand a lower price for GAE. On the other hand the GAE datastore is 
designed for scaling, which may be difficult to achieve using ordinary 
relational databases like MySQL. I like the GAE datastore because it scales 
automatically. It's just having to pay for frontend instances I think really 
sucks. 

-- 
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/-/Xlf5Fl4MBTQJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Static file not deployed

[Anders]

Oops. This thread was meant for the Java group. Sorry about that.

-- 
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/-/rPv5qT4LrDsJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] Static file not deployed

[Anders]

I'm using Java GAE SDK 1.5.3 and encountered a problem when deploying
an image file. I found an older thread about this:
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/46fd326848e55d69

I solved by changing the name of the image, but I think it should work
without that kind of workaround (or deploying a new app version as
suggested in the other thread).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[google-appengine] Re: App Engine is finished, here's why

[Anders]

I guess medium-size applications can run on platforms with much lower 
prices, such as 4GH: http://www.godaddy.com/hosting/web-hosting.aspx?ci=9009

GAE is probably more scalable in reality though.

-- 
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/-/gJ34Z8anQEcJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Why app engine new price model is totally wrong

[Anders]

That looks interesting. And no messy instances to have to pay huge amounts 
of money for. No Java support though. And I wonder how well their MySQL 
solution scales.

-- 
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/-/gFhohFfem88J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[google-appengine] Re: App Engine is finished, here's why

[Anders]

What I think could make customers abandon Google App Engine is having to pay 
a lot for frontend instances. To use a crude analogy, paying a lot for 
instances is like paying a lot for SMS messages sent from a cell phone. The 
quotas for CPU hours, data storage and bandwidth etc are enough to make a 
huge profit for cloud providers, and the frontend instances are like a 
cherry on top that is bigger than the cake! Just because other cloud 
providers are greedy as hell and charge for frontend instances doesn't mean 
Google must follow that 20th century business strategy.

-- 
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/-/tCYXDpcU5JkJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[google-appengine] Re: The scheduler needs a fix and quick.

[Anders]

As I wrote in another thread, I think Google should offer free and unlimited 
instances. Google will still make a lot of money on the quotas. And the 
complex and messy configuration of instances and the scheduler would be 
something Google could work on under the hood so to speak. A cloud service 
should provide a high abstraction level, not ADD more and more complexity 
for the customers. Let's not turn back to the old days when only scientists 
in white lab coats could operate computers. What will the next step be? 
Thousands of parameters for us customers to adjust for the datastore?

-- 
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/-/L_1vWNbQ_4gJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[google-appengine] Re: App Engine will not be leaving preview prior to Sept 26th

[Anders]

By having a guarantee of only 1 instance (or any specified max number of 
instances) we as customers can ensure that our budget isn't suddenly eaten 
away by spikes of lots of instances being spawned. One potential problem is 
of course that the application can become extremely slow resulting in a 
really bad end-user experience. I think Google should be generous and have 
unlimited free instances. Google will still make a lot of money on the 
quotas. AND, that will make GAE super competitive. AND, then it would not be 
a problem with the instances being opaque and Google would be free to adjust 
the instances as they see fit.

-- 
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/-/dNxrKBmINZIJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Azure is changing its prices too

[Anders]

Azure looks pretty cool. But isn't .NET like a monopoly? I would like an 
open source cloud platform. That would really make the prices go down. 
Because new cloud providers would basically mostly have to provide the 
hardware infrastructure since the software for the cloud services would be 
open source and free. Not limited to PHP though. Yikes, lol. I would want 
the open source to also run Java applications.

-- 
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/-/cNiBInkWJgYJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] Class Action Lawsuit ?

[Anders]

Legal fights are lose-lose (except for the lawyers, lol). A lot of friction, 
and waste of energy that even the so-called 'winner' should better have 
spent on other things. It's a game for grown-ups that haven't matured yet. 
;-)

-- 
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/-/BV1iVMHUVN8J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] Class Action Lawsuit ?

[Anders]

Legal fights are lose-lose (except for the lawyers, lol). A lot of friction, 
and waste of energy that even the so-called 'winner' should better have 
spent on other things. It's a game for grow-ups that haven't matured yet. 
;-)

-- 
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/-/RVdUbvdHqvsJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Call to Action on the way Google has rolled out the App Engine Pricing

[Anders]

Yes, I have seen a ten times increase. But all that was the cost for many 
instances running at the same time. If I can limit the number of instances 
the cost will be reduced significantly. On the other hand with for example 
only max one instance the application may become very sluggish. So I have to 
see what the actual performance and cost will be when the new price model 
kicks in in the second half of September or something like that.

It seems that instance hours are very expensive. And the price is reduced by 
50%! I don't like the idea of paying for instances because Google can 
squeeze in a huge number of instances in each physical server, so it's a 
very opaque pricing.

-- 
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/-/3PBxkmxdIhoJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Call to Action on the way Google has rolled out the App Engine Pricing

[Anders]

I believe the new price model will be reasonable fair. We will see what the 
actual cost will be. If Google has become too greedy we can start an open 
source project for a peer-to-peer search engine that will render Google 
Search basically obsolete as a proper punishment. He he.

-- 
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/-/i960iYzRRUUJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Google setting a precedent for unstable cloud-compute billing

[Anders]

The inflation rate is over the long run insignificant compared to the
doubling of cost-performance each year. In 10 years that means 1000
times
cheaper computing power, storage and communication! So with a fixed
price
Google (and other cloud providers) can within a few years reach
astronomical
profit margins and hope that their customers don't understand
exponential
progress.

Here is some hard data about this:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

On 1 Sep, 04:03, John Wheeler  wrote:
> I find it hard to believe you guys actually went though the data and saw the
> 500% jumps on the comparison reports and decided to release the pricing plan
> changes with such gusto. No one who signed up for App Engine ever saw that
> e-mail coming a mile away, and it hurts.
>
> Here's a plain and simple idea that makes sense: Why not just keep the
> pricing the same and announce you're going to charge 2% increases each year
> to match for inflation?

-- 
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: New pricing will cost me over 500 $ monthly for my three sites... I am floored.

[Anders]

I saw a ten times increase for my paid application. In reality that will be 
much lower if I limit the number of instances, so we will see what the 
actual cost will be.

-- 
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/-/_QlYbLC6X6EJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Google setting a precedent for unstable cloud-compute billing

[Anders]

The inflation rate is over the long run insignificant compared to the 
doubling of cost-performance each year. In 10 years that means 1000 times 
cheaper computing power, storage and communication! So with a fixed price 
Google (and other cloud providers) can within a few years reach astronomical 
profit margins and hope that their customers doesn't understand exponential 
progress.

Here is some hard data about this: 
http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

-- 
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/-/rQ0QGq7KnGQJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: UNBELIEVABLE NEW BILLING!! Google Please respond...

[Anders]

My guess is that the new price model will be reasonable fair. Anything else 
would be an insane move by Google. Let's abandon ALL Google products, 
including Google Search, if they become too greedy. :D

-- 
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/-/g_NZOwgpuroJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: UNBELIEVABLE NEW BILLING!! Google Please respond...

[Anders]

Agree. I saw a jump from $0.30 per day to $3.66 per day. Over ten times the 
price! To be fair the increase is only for instance hours and those can be 
limited but anyway. I find the whole paying for per instance concept opaque 
and suspicious. What exactly is one instance, and how many instances share 
the same physical server etc?

-- 
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/-/MhAYu9TDIwoJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[google-appengine] Re: New pricing will cost me over 500 $ monthly for my three sites... I am floored.

[Anders]

I took a look at the Amazon prices just now. It looks quite expensive too. 
And the same dubious and opaque cost per instance concept. Both Google and 
Amazon can cram in 1000 instances in each physical server! Talk about 
hideous profit margin.

The cost for GAE will be low if the instances is limited to only one. But 
what will the performance be then? And what about traffic spikes and/or 
traffic growth?

-- 
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/-/F33aH7yTLK0J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[google-appengine] Re: New pricing will cost me over 500 $ monthly for my three sites... I am floored.

[Anders]

Something must be wrong with the new pricing model. When I look at the Usage 
Report for 2011-08-26, then it says total: $0.30. With the new pricing model 
it says: $3.66.

With the same amount of usage for one month it will be around $110. For one 
application with tiny traffic! And that is only the price for frontend 
instance hours.

Is Google's motto: "Don't be evil, be very evil." ?

Or is this Google's way of saying: "We are killing Google App Engine, but 
will support it for another two years just to not piss you off too much." 
;-) 

-- 
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/-/-7eC8T_40ggJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: FAQ for out of preview pricing changes

[Anders]

I just wanted to add that being greedy is not necessarily a 'bad' thing for 
businesses seen from a larger perspective, because a company who is very 
greedy opens up opportunities for other companies! So almost paradoxically, 
being greedy can be a generous thing. But when it comes to Google App Engine 
my personal wish is that Google will be as little greedy as possible, 
because I think GAE is a great service plus I'm too lazy to switch to 
another cloud provider at the moment. 

-- 
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/-/39JHm8fuBDEJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: FAQ for out of preview pricing changes

[Anders]

I think Google will provide a reasonably fair pricing model. I heard about 
how Groupon takes 50% of the money and pay their business partners with a 90 
days delay. That sounds disgustingly greedy to me. And the person who 
mentioned that then said that Google has a similar service where they take 
only 20% and pay within 4 days. Maybe that's too greedy too but it's at 
least more reasonable, and maybe even fair. I would be surprised if Google 
tried to rip off its App Engine customers too much.

-- 
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/-/fhBGbqQ9YVAJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Updated App Engine Pricing FAQ!

[Anders]

Exactly. That's something service providers want to keep opaque so that they 
can cram in as many they can for maximum profit. Successful companies of the 
future have the motto: "Don't be opaque." ;-) Another trick they use is to 
set a fixed pricing model for many years to come, because the 
price/performance of computing power, data storage, communication etc 
doubles every year.

-- 
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/-/cuqyO9rsGd0J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: High replication data - Space freed after cache expiration?

[Anders]

In one of my apps I started deleting high replication data (entities stored 
in the datastore) and the quota started to decrease, so yes deleting 
entities will free up quota. The cache (memcache) is a separate function not 
affecting the datastore quota. Data in the datastore is stored permanently 
unless deleted and the quota is the total data stored for all times.

-- 
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/-/DbYB-fS8Ez4J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 the native API really so much faster than JDO and slim3?

[Anders]

Yeah, that's what I suspected. Lazy loading. With the modification Slim3 is 
almost as fast as the native API. Strange that JDO is so slow. I thought 
most of the time was for accessing the datastore, not for running the Java 
bytecode.

-- 
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/-/dHRvXzBkWVNkUndK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 the native API really so much faster than JDO and slim3?

[Anders]

I started by looking at JDO but after finding some info about potential 
performance loss I wrote a simple wrapper abstract base class around a 
low-level Entity object and then extended the base class into the data 
classes I needed. Super light weight. :-)

-- 
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/-/XzF3Q3MxcFVvbGdK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 the native API really so much faster than JDO and slim3?

[Anders]

I started by looking at JDO but after founding some info about potential 
performance loss I wrote a simple wrapper abstract base class around a 
low-level Entity object and then extended the base class into the data 
classes I needed. Super light weight. :-)

-- 
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/-/M2gyNmhhRmR4QlVK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 the native API really so much faster than JDO and slim3?

[Anders]

I doubt that the difference can be that large. The performance test code 
uses the low-level PreparedQuery#asList call. The question is if the list 
(List) contains entities loaded with data or if the list returned 
has a lazy loading implementation so that the actual data from the datastore 
only gets loaded when entity properties are accessed.

-- 
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/-/RjNNRnUwSGxqMG9K.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 the native API really so much faster than JDO and slim3?

[Anders]

I doubt that the difference can be that large. The performance test code 
uses the low-level PreparedQuery#asList call. The question is if the list 
(List) contains entities loaded with data or if the list returned 
has a lazy loading implementation so that the actual data from the the 
datastore only gets loaded when entity properties are accessed.

-- 
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/-/WVhBRXBqMWFMZ3dK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Imagine that I was a greedy business manager at Google. Then I would cram in 
100 instances into each GAE server with one (multicore) CPU. That's 100 * 
0.08 * 24 * 30 = $5,760 per month for each server. How's that for profit 
margin? Larry Page would of course be very glad. Not.

-- 
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/-/VHpuUzBrTnZGQ2NK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Pricing Model Suggestion

[Anders]

Yes, there are many things wrong with the pricing model based on instances. 
And many things are in the hands of Google, out of our control us customers 
as you pointed out. And even if Google really is honest behind the public 
scene, which may very well be the case, what would prevent some business 
manager at Google in the future to start squeezing more profit out of the 
system since it's actually opaque as opposed to any claim of it being a 
transparent model, at least in how instances are used.

-- 
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/-/UEQ5SUx0OEdSTkFK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Unused instance stays alive

[Anders]

Let's demand that Google should drop the instance pricing model. Or else!!! 
Or else we will switch to Yahoo! and Bing. Heck, that could even be 
interesting. To stop using Google products altogether. He he.

-- 
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/-/WEV6d0VURXdfWkVK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

It's a strange new pricing model. I haven't researched it much, but still I 
think it should be very clear how the pricing is made. The new pricing model 
is not clear in an easy to understand way.

-- 
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/-/YTllSkNVU1E2SGdK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: RE: [google-appengine] Re: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

I saw that there are other threads dealing with the instance issue. Phew! 
I'm not alone with those concerns. Maybe Google is trying to make a 
statement. Pointing out something similarly sneaky that their competitors 
do. lol. :-)

-- 
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/-/STY5Y1FBMlNqc01K.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Pricing Model Suggestion

[Anders]

Ok, the new scheduler will start to take down instances more. But can we 
really trust that? The more instances the scheduler spawns, the more money 
Google makes. There is no incentive for Google to improve the scheduler. 
With the new price model the incentive is the opposite: to make the 
scheduler spawn a lot of instances.

At the very least, the new pricing model based on running instances is 
confusing.

-- 
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/-/M1J6LU5VTFd4T1FK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Pricing Model Suggestion

[Anders]

I must have missed something. I can't imagine that Google would be that 
stupid and/or greedy.

-- 
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/-/Z3lZbGhMRjRqNmNK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Pricing Model Suggestion

[Anders]

What worries me is the to me confusing pricing based on instances. As I 
wrote recently in another thread: One new app I have has had 3 instances 
running the last few days. With a 15 minutes minimum it means essentially 3 
instances active 24/7 (the app has cron jobs running). That's two instances 
more than the free quota = 2* 0.08 * 24 * 30 = $115.2 per month. For one 
app! With very low traffic. Incredibly expensive. Can this really be 
correct?

-- 
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/-/dmJMczlxQ2FfbGtK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: RE: [google-appengine] Re: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

I'm still nervous about the new pricing model based on instances. One new 
app I have has had 3 instances running the last few days. With a 15 minutes 
minimum it means essentially 3 instances active 24/7 (the app has cron jobs 
running). That's two instances more than the free quota = 2* 0.08 * 24 * 30 
= $115.2 per month. For one app! With very low traffic. Incredibly 
expensive. Can this really be correct?

-- 
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/-/M2d0Qm9GR282Y2tK.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

That's why I wrote: Of course, the raw computing, storage and communication 
cost probably only is a fraction of the overall GAE cost, but as the 
platform matures, then the service cost for that too will go down.

So even the cost for the things not directly related to computing power 
would also go down! Unless the GAE team plans to implement some new very 
complicated things. That could be the case. But my guess is that most of the 
GAE functionality is already in place. Continuous improvement of the system 
is another thing that could cost a lot for Google. So yes, there may be many 
factors that would require Google to keep a fairly high price, but I doubt 
that they will need to increase the price in the future.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

To cover the full spectrum of usage, CPU time would have to be included. For 
example, applications could run algorithms for what is called bit mining to 
generate digital currencies such as Bitcoin: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Generating_bitcoins

Bitcoin paper: http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

To cover the full spectrum of usage, CPU time would have to be included. For 
example, applications could run algorithms for what is call bit mining to 
generate digital currencies such as Bitcoin: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Generating_bitcoins

Bitcoin paper: http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Long-term sustainability means that the price model must be sustainable for 
both customers and for Google. If the price model is too expensive for 
customers, they will abandon GAE. And since the price of computing power 
gets divided by two each year, then it's likely that the current GAE price 
model is too expensive since it's already like two or three years old. Of 
course, the raw computing, storage and communication cost probably only is a 
fraction of the overall GAE cost, but as the platform matures, then the 
service cost for that too will go down.

-- 
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: RE: [google-appengine] Re: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Ok, yes, it could be that Heroku is still too small to be a real cloud 
service provider. What I like with GAE is that it is a really massive cloud 
service that is easy to use. It's just the new price model I'm a bit nervous 
about.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Another interesting cloud service is Heroku: http://www.heroku.com/

I have tried it briefly and it was very easy to deploy Ruby on Rails 
applications to the Heroku cloud (and for free). I haven't checked the 
Heroku cost-performance for larger applications though.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Oh, I quoted the wrong post? Sorry about that. I'm not used to this new 
interface for posts. I will check more carefully what I reply to.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Here is one quote:

"But I noticed something else surprising. When I plotted the 49 machines on 
an exponential graph (where a straight line means exponential growth), I 
didn’t get a straight line. What I got was another exponential curve. In 
other words, there’s exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. 
Computer speed (per unit cost) doubled every three years between 1910 and 
1950, doubled every two years between 1950 and 1966, and is now doubling 
every year." -- From: 
http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Correction: If the price for a certain amount of computing power was $10 ten 
years ago, the cost for the same computing power today is $0.01. Holy crock. 
Talk about potential for customers to get completely fooled, especially in 
the long term.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Wow, I didn't know that. And Ray Kurzweil says that the price/performance 
for computing power (and data storage and digital communication) DOUBLES 
every year. So in three years the price should be 2*2*2 = 8 times cheaper. 
In ten years time the price should be 1000 times cheaper, which means that 
if the monthly cost is $10 times for computing power the first year, after 
ten years the cost for the same computing power is $0.1. It's important that 
we as customers are aware of this exponential progress lest we get ripped 
off on monumental scales.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Wait a minute, my mistake. One CPU hour today is not the same as one CPU 
hour one year ago and definitely not the same as one CPU hour 10 years ago. 
So the exponential progress is already built in to the CPU hour. But anyway, 
I think Google could lower the price for CPU hours and add quota for RAM 
usage.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

If RAM usage really is important, then why not just add RAM quota to the 
existing quotas instead of messing with instances? And then lower the price 
for the current CPU quota in GAE. Google should be able to lower the CPU 
quota a LOT, since it has been 3 years since it was introduced (if I 
remember correctly). Exponential price/performance progress! Ask Ray 
Kurzweil about it. ;-)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

But as Jeff Schnitzer said, RAM is more important than CPU time. And if only 
CPU time is measured, then the RAM usage will not be taken into account.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Hmm... If that would work in practice it might be a good idea. One problem 
could be applications that consume huge amounts of RAM and remain consuming 
little time. That would be unfair compared to applications that use much 
less RAM in the same amount of time.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Oh, you're right! Separating CPU and RAM usage would be a good idea (if it 
can be done in practice). The price model already contains a large number of 
different quotas for all kinds of APIs and stuff. Separating CPU and RAM 
usage would not add much complexity. There is still of course the problem 
with how to measure CPU time. Is idle CPU time included, or is 100% CPU load 
the only measurement or is some other average combination used? 

-- 
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: RE: [google-appengine] Re: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Even if doesn't happen today, what prevents it from happening in the future?

-- 
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: RE: [google-appengine] Re: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

My current apps use tiny amounts of memory, so that would be good for me 
too. :D However, to be fair, apps that consume huge amounts of CPU should 
have some form of quota too.

The problems with the idea of paying for instances include, but are perhaps 
not limited to:

1. No incentive for Google to make their scheduler better (the more 
instances the scheduler creates, the more money Google makes and the more 
extra the customers have to pay).

2. Unless carefully defined, the idea of an 'instance' is an arbitrary 
concept in terms of how many instances are crammed into each server, how 
much effective CPU time and other resources each instance gets in reality, 
and how much overhead is included. A term that Google can change their 
definition of at their own whims. That can be opaque as hell. And here 
again, if the customers pay for all the overhead caused by the GAE 
infrastructure software, then there is no incentive for Google to improve 
the performance of that code.

3. Unclear and difficult for customers to estimate how many instances they 
will have to pay for each month even when they know the average load of 
their application, since the spawning of new instances is determined by 
Google's code, not the application code.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Another problem is that with the new GAE price model there is no incentive 
for Google to make the scheduler perform better and better. In fact the 
opposite is the case: the more instances the scheduler creates, the more 
money Google makes. Sounds like a really bad strategy from a customer 
perspective (and from a long-term Google quality perspective).

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

That's a valid reason. Instead of having to deal with both ram and cpu to 
base the price on instances. But it's still confusing to me. What if an 
application has to spawn a new instance just because of traffic load and the 
GAE server being overloaded by running too many other instances (with other 
customers' applications) at the same time? If the server would not be so 
crowded with other customers' apps running in the same server then a new 
instance would not be needed. So then the customer has to pay for an 
extremely expensive new instance just because Google has crammed too many 
instances (from other customers) into each server!

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Ok, if it's the RAM that is the bottleneck, then paying per instance makes 
sense, if each instance is given a limited amount of RAM. If this (RAM being 
the bottleneck) will remain the case also in the near future then that kind 
of price model would work. But then why not base the price on the amount of 
RAM used? I find the model of paying per instance unclear.

CPU time is also not entirely clear, as as you said the CPU can often be 
idle. It would be misleading to have the same price for idle CPU time as for 
100% CPU usage since when the CPU is idle for one instance, other instances 
can use that CPU time.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

To elaborate: In today's business world with massive public communication 
companies need to be transparent and fair or else they will paint themselves 
into a shady corner. An insincere company could offer server 'instances' and 
have their customers pay for how many instances they use while not telling 
the customers that they cram in 1000 instances in each server running with 
virtual memory and horribly sluggish page swapping and CPU time-sharing. Not 
a pretty picture and a fraudulent kind of transparency.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

The strange thing is that the new GAE price model is supposed to be more 
transparent, yet it seems to be less so than the current price model. Maybe 
it's just that some terms, like instance, needs to be explained a bit more. 
This FAQ explains some of it but it's still not clear enough to me: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-appengine/ob-kMuDAAqc/discussion

Another thing is that today 10 free applications can be used for each 
account. 10 applications could potentially use many instances per day which 
would result in huge monthly bills. Compare with for example super cheap 
hosting for around $2 per month like: http://www.one.com/en/

My guess is that Google's pricing after all is fair, but the new GAE price 
model needs to be clarified I think.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

What I'm most confused about in the new GAE price model is how much CPU time 
each instance is given. For example if 20 instances are sharing the same CPU 
in a GAE server simultaneously, does that mean that each instance will only 
be given 1/20 of the CPU yet still be billed full price?!

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

Unless, of course, today's price has already been set with the exponential 
price/performance progress in mind and that the price is meant to remain 
fairly constant for several years.

-- 
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: Price comparison between GAE, EC2 & Azure

[Anders]

In case this has not been mentioned already, it's important to stress the 
exponential progress in price/performance in computing power and 
communication. So over time the prices should go down, and over a period of 
several years, the prices should go down significantly due to the 
accelerating technological progress.

-- 
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: Prerelease SDK 1.5.0 available for download

[Anders]

+1 on this, rather problematic when task creation fails

On 4 Maj, 16:57, nischalshetty  wrote:
> @Ikai I'm getting a high new task creation failure since the pre release sdk
> has been out. I've put the stack trace here :
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/IjygaiOT0Ho/discus...

-- 
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: Task Creation failing at a high rate since 1.5 pre release

[Anders]

Same problem here, also getting:
DeadlineExceededError: The API call taskqueue.BulkAdd() took too long
to respond and was cancelled.

Have been going on all day with about the same frequency (mostly
TransientErrors that is)

On 4 Maj, 18:55, Andrei Cosmin Fifiiţă 
wrote:
> I still get these errors... I can't say its a high percentage, but
> it's a significant rate.
>
> On 4 May 2011 19:47, Robert Kluin  wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've seen a few bursts of transient errors on a couple Python apps as
> > well.  They seemed to have cleared up for me though.
>
> > What percentage of task adds are giving errors?
>
> > Robert
>
> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:31, Ice13ill  wrote:
> >> I get this exception too... It seams that there is a problem when
> >> adding tasks to a queue ?
>
> >> On May 4, 5:55 pm, nischalshetty  wrote:
> >>> Hi,
>
> >>> I'm seeing a lot of task failures after the announcement of the pre 
> >>> release
> >>> 1.5 sdk. I haven't changed my sdk (I'm on 1.4.2 java sdk for gae).  Tasks
> >>> are very critical to my application. My app creates a lot of tasks every
> >>> minute. Can you please look into this?
>
> >>> Here's the stack trace :
>
> >>> com.google.appengine.api.taskqueue.TransientFailureException: Unknown
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.appengine.api.taskqueue.QueueApiHelper.translateError(QueueApiHe
> >>>  lper.java:58)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.appengine.api.taskqueue.QueueApiHelper.translateError(QueueApiHe
> >>>  lper.java:112)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.appengine.api.taskqueue.QueueApiHelper.makeSyncCall(QueueApiHelp
> >>>  er.java:32)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.appengine.api.taskqueue.QueueImpl.add(QueueImpl.java:466)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.appengine.api.taskqueue.QueueImpl.add(QueueImpl.java:412)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.appengine.api.taskqueue.QueueImpl.add(QueueImpl.java:397)
>
> >>> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor62.invoke(Unknown Source)
> >>> at 
> >>> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImp
> >>>  l.java:43)
> >>> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.apphosting.runtime.security.shared.intercept.java.lang.reflect.M
> >>>  ethod_$1.run(Method_.java:165)
> >>> at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.apphosting.runtime.security.shared.intercept.java.lang.reflect.M
> >>>  ethod_.privilegedInvoke(Method_.java:163)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.apphosting.runtime.security.shared.intercept.java.lang.reflect.M
> >>>  ethod_.invoke_(Method_.java:124)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.google.apphosting.runtime.security.shared.intercept.java.lang.reflect.M
> >>>  ethod_.invoke(Method_.java:43)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invokeAction(DefaultActionI
> >>>  nvocation.java:404)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invokeActionOnly(DefaultAct
> >>>  ionInvocation.java:267)
>
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultAction
> >>>  Invocation.java:224)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultAction
> >>>  Invocation.java:223)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.util.profiling.UtilTimerStack.profile(UtilTimerStac
> >>>  k.java:455)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invoke(DefaultActionInvocat
> >>>  ion.java:221)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.DefaultWorkflowInterceptor.doIntercept(
> >>>  DefaultWorkflowInterceptor.java:221)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.MethodFilterInterceptor.intercept(Metho
> >>>  dFilterInterceptor.java:86)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultAction
> >>>  Invocation.java:224)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultAction
> >>>  Invocation.java:223)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.util.profiling.UtilTimerStack.profile(UtilTimerStac
> >>>  k.java:455)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invoke(DefaultActionInvocat
> >>>  ion.java:221)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.validator.ValidationInterceptor.doIntercept(Validat
> >>>  ionInterceptor.java:150)
> >>> at 
> >>> org.apache.struts2.interceptor.validation.AnnotationValidationInterceptor.d
> >>>  oIntercept(AnnotationValidationInterceptor.java:48)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.MethodFilterInterceptor.intercept(Metho
> >>>  dFilterInterceptor.java:86)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultAction
> >>>  Invocation.java:224)
> >>> at 
> >>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultAction
> >>>  Invocation.java:223)
> >

[google-appengine] Reserving instances and datastore performance

[Anders]

I read in the App Engine Product Roadmap that "Ability to reserve
instances to reduce application loading overhead" is planned. Really
good! If the price for that will not be too high.

http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/roadmap.html

But will that also affect the performance of for example the
datastore? I have noticed that sometimes the datastore takes a long
time to make a put() that usually takes much less time. That's a
similar problem to the coldstart load time. It's the load time for an
entire page or Ajax call that needs to be fast, and have an even
response time. The quality is lowered significantly even when slow
responses happen only seldom.

-- 
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-appeng...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] No 'Stay signed in' option for Google Accounts

[Anders]

When signing in to a GAE application with Google Accounts the 'Stay
signed in' option is only shown the first time a user signs in. For
consecutive sign ins the 'Stay signed in' option is missing. It would
be good IMO if the option was shown/available for all sign ins.

-- 
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-appeng...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[google-appengine] Re: app engine is down?

[Anders]

Now it seems to be working again. Some hours ago GAE responses were
reeeally slow, or server error as in the dashboard.

On Feb 24, 4:51 pm, kang  wrote:
> Error:
> Server Error
>
> --
> Stay hungry,Stay foolish.

-- 
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-appeng...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.