[google-appengine] Re: Cloud NDB is now GA

[Philip]

In this ticket  it was 
stated that Google does not recommend NDB for new projects. It is merely 
intended for upgrading from 2.7 to python 3 GAE. It this statement still 
true given the fact that it is now GA? 

Am Montag, 24. Februar 2020 20:02:36 UTC+1 schrieb Andrew Gorcester:
>
> Hello Pythonistas,
>
>
> The Cloud NDB client library for Cloud Datastore and Cloud Firestore in 
> Datastore mode, previously introduced as a beta project in September 2019, 
> has been launched to GA with its 1.0 release.
>
>
> Cloud NDB is an updated version of the App Engine NDB client library for 
> Datastore, adding support for Python 3 and targeting the Datastore API. 
> While it is intended for users migrating from App Engine Python 2.7 to App 
> Engine Python 3, it is fully portable and compatible with other Python 
> platforms. The library can be installed with `pip install google-cloud-ndb` 
> and the source code can be found on Github at 
> https://github.com/googleapis/python-ndb.
>
>
> We also have a migration guide for NDB 
> 
>  
> at, as part of our broader GAE Python migration documentation 
> . 
> We'll continue updating and adding to this documentation and library as 
> part of our migration support effort, so please also continue sending us 
> your feedback.
>
>
> Thank you again for your continued support for App Engine and our Cloud 
> platform. I am looking forward to hearing feedback from the community on 
> this and upcoming efforts.
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/322768f1-6716-436c-b4da-e8d17ed4ad77%40googlegroups.com.

[google-appengine] Deploying a simple http server to both goapp serve & docker?

[Philip Mather]

Hello all,
I have a question that might turn out to be a misunderstanding about how a 
typical development process works but it's probably a chance to learn 
anyway so...

I started plugging away at various Google Code labs to bring myself up to 
speed with golang, in particular 
https://codelabs.developers.google.com/codelabs/nyc-subway-station-locator/index.html
 
which uses a basic import net/http, init() to register a handler(), write 
hello world type pattern found at 
https://codelabs.developers.google.com/codelabs/nyc-subway-station-locator/index.html#2
 
along with a suitable app.yaml to facilitate the end of goal of running you 
app with "goapp serve". They extend it from there and eventually "gcloud 
app deploy" it.

Very nice. I changed it to do the London underground and played around with 
the JS a bit, blah blah.

I then decided to containerize this and deploy it to GKE via docker so that 
I could fix a static IP to it and call remote APIs that need to white-list 
you (hence the static IP). I wrote a docker file, 
https://github.com/philipmather/scry.philipmather.dev/blob/master/Dockerfile.scry
 
and got that going via "docker build -f Dockerfile.scry -t scry ." and then 
say "docker run --rm -p 8080:8080 scry" etc, etc...

In moving from GAE to GKE obviously I lose whatever "scaffolding" 
("google.golang.org/appengine" ?) it is that GAE provides and replaced 
init() with a main() that constructs a ditty little web server. This all 
works great and the build time isn't a total killer but I miss being able 
to tweak the files with "goapp serve" running and see the result "live" as 
it were, especially as a large chunk of the app is Javascript working 
against the Maps API.

So... Is it possible to construct something that can do both? Instead of 
porting the contents of init() to a main() should I have simply kept 
something like https://godoc.org/google.golang.org/appengine#Main, imported 
"google.golang.org/appengine" and continued my app in it's own package 
(instead of main?)?

I'm aware I can use cloud builder and triggers to add more automagic to my 
process but nothing seems to have the immediacy of "goapp serve"? I feel 
like I've missed something somewhere? Searched high and low and can't find 
anyone doing what I'm aiming for? Any pointers appreciated!

Regards,
   Phil

-- 
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/0643a842-ca60-4281-854b-d70e963ab28f%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Stolen website on Google sub domaine? What should I do?

[Philip Kilner]

Hi,

Based on the page at: -

http://flawedgate.appspot.com/

...and what happens when you enter Google's own domain there: -

http://flawedgate.appspot.com/google.com

...the site in question seems to simply be a proxy.

HTH


--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/56407A9E.6090601%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: My site scraped with app on appspot.com

[Philip Kilner]

Hi Eduard,

On 09/07/15 08:39, Eduard Dimitrov wrote:

P.S. I see many other sites with such a problems within urls of this
"App" - vivaciousp29.appspot.com


It's a proxy, rather than a site hosting scraped content, so you can 
probably access pretty much any site through it.


HTH

--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/559E2D0D.106%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Google Apps No Longer Free

[Philip Kilner]

Hi Vinny,

On 22/01/15 04:22, Vinny P wrote:

You're talking about the difference between adding the domain as a
secondary domain/adding it as an alias domain, correct?



Yes, I think so - don't recall the term "secondary, but looking at a 
paid Google apps account, the option is described as: -


"Add another domain
Manage users and groups at an associated domain that you own, 
independently of the primary domain."


...so I think we're talking about the same thing.


To connect a domain name to App Engine, it's always been recommended to
use the domain as a primary or an alias domain on Apps. Configuring it
as a secondary domain might give you distinct email accounts, but in my
experience that introduces strange issues for Apps management and config
- not only for App Engine but other services as well. I understand your
point, but at the same time I think the change helps streamline Apps and
probably helps reduce support costs as well. Frankly, I've always
thought it was strange that Apps had 3 different ways (primary,
secondary, alias) of configuring domains.



Re. problems, I haven't experienced those, but to be honest that's 
probably because I'm not doing anything very complicated.


Re. "helps streamline Apps and probably helps reduce support costs", I 
don't honestly see that - this change makes the "grandafathered" free 
versions different from the standard version in functionality as opposed 
to numerical limits (which is surely /less/ streamlined), and given that 
were are talking about the unpaid versions I don't supposed an enormous 
amount of resource goes into support.


FWIW, although Google have been silent on this issue, there is some 
suggestion in the support forums that this was done to prevent abuse, 
specifically to prevent people "selling" free apps accounts and using 
this mechanism to switch domains. If that's the case, I'm a little 
perplexed - seems like a crude way of combating the problem, and it 
seems like a problem that is self-limiting in the sense that there can 
only be a finite no. of these account out there. More to the point, I 
feel as though I'm being punished for someone else's misbehaviour, and 
that Google haven't been entirely straight about the fact, the timing, 
or the rationale for the change.


It might seem churlish complaining about tweaks to a free service, and I 
absolutely do appreciate the fantastic freebie that apps for domains was 
(and continues to be, up to a point), but it does constitute a change 
when we were told the service would be unchanged, and it does make my 
existing accounts much less useful for my purpose, in part because this 
has diminished my confidence in continuity of service.



If you absolutely must have free email accounts, I would suggest looking
at your registrar - GoDaddy and other registrars occasionally have sales
where they bundle free email or another service with the purchase of a
domain. It's entirely possible to configure an alias domain, use it for
an App Engine site, but to use an external mail service for that domain.



Sure - I run a bunch of servers with Virtualmin on them, so giving 
people the ability to create multiple email addresses is not an issue.


For me the issue is that I was able to set up projects with a domain 
name, probably only two or three users (one of them me), and hand it 
over the user as a coherent whole, where the Google Apps account let 
them manage their domain, email, apps and - in some cases - App Engine 
apps with a single account.


Knitting together multiple services is fiddly for me, and the result is 
messier for my users. What I've come to realise is that the Google 
account within the Apps domain was the valuable bit - without that, its 
easier to host and deploy elsewhere.


Having said all the above, I recognise that I'm probably not that great 
a fit for App Engine, and that this change has just made that clear to 
me - my point is merely that this is an unannounced change to the 
service, and that for some of us it means that these grandfathered 
accounts are no longer useful for new projects.



--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/54C0CC12.7040909%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Google Apps No Longer Free

[Philip Kilner]

Hi,

On 21/01/15 16:04, PK wrote:

Yes old Google Apps accounts are grandfathered with the terms of the
time they were opened.



Mostly!

Google recently disabled the ability to add an additional domain to an 
existing account - you can now add an alias domain, but not a domain 
with distinct email addresses.


Whilst this is a PITA in my particular circumstances, it's not a huge 
deal - but there was no announcement, and Google's support folks are 
pretending that it has always been that way, which is simply not true.


This has considerably reduced my faith in Google's commitment to not 
reducing the functionality of these grandfathered accounts, and I've 
essentially stopped starting up new projects in them.



--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/54BFE6E9.7000106%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[google-appengine] Custom domain, no "Compute > App Engine" option.

[Philip G]

I'm trying to follow this guide for adding a *non*-Google Apps custom 
domain: 
https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/domain#serving_your_app_on_a_custom_domain

However, the very first step says: 

> Go to the Google Developers Console at 
> https://console.developers.google.com and select your project to see its 
> dashboard. At the left of the dashboard, select Compute > App Engine > 
> Settings


... I don't have an "App Engine" option. I have an app engine app running. 
It's deployed, and heck, even has the remains of a working site (test 
only), but there is no "App Engine" option.. What am I missing? 

Thanks,

-- 
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] Re: Appengine ecosystem?

[Philip Kilner]

Hi,

On 27/06/14 09:15, timh wrote:
> Unfortunately it seems all the good appengine discussions went away with
> the SO introduction
> however SO is no good for discussions about approach, idea's etc...  it
> also seems like a lot of input etc
> disappeared when people like Nick Johnson and Ikai went elsewhere.
> 
> Just my 2c worth.
> 

+1

I find that listening to the chit-chat of form discussions is a great
way to discover how other people use tools and helps me learn, and the
lack of such a forum since the advent of SO as the official channel has
made App Engine that much less attractive as a result.

Ultimately, Google's changes in this area have convinced me that I am
not the intended audience for App Engine. As a solo developer, my needs
have been much better served since I switched to platforms where the
vendors see the value in this sort of community.


-- 

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

-- 
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] Re: Unable to open jsp file on Google app engine Server Error 500

[Philip Gerstoft]

Have you been able to fix this issue? I am having the same issue.

-Philip

On Monday, March 24, 2014 12:59:03 PM UTC-7, shobhit maheshwari wrote:
>
>  created a web application project on eclipse after installing Google 
> Plugin for Eclipse.
>
> I ceated a simple jsp file in the projectName/war folder (same folder as 
> the index.html file)
>
> I linked the above created file to the index.html file (which is default) 
> like
>
> < a href="main.jsp">Url< /a>
>
> Now when I run this application on
>
> http://localhost:,
>
> I get the index.html file by default and on clicking Url, I'm redirected 
> to main.jsp file.
>
> Upon deploying the same application to my google app engine , when I click 
> the link Url in my main.html file, I get
>
> 500 Server ErrorError: Server ErrorThe server encountered an error and could 
> not complete your request.Please try again in 30 seconds.
>
> *Why is the app not working (unable to open .jsp file) in Google app 
> engine ?*
>
> On checking the logs in my google app engine account I see
>
> 2014-03-23 22:22:28.986 /main.jsp 500 523ms 0kb Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; 
> WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/33.0.1750.154 
> Safari/537.36 module=default version=1
> 203.110.246.25 - - [23/Mar/2014:22:22:28 -0700] "GET /main.jsp HTTP/1.1" 500 
> 0 "http://jyugjk.appspot.com/"; "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64) 
> AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/33.0.1750.154 Safari/537.36" 
> "jyugjk.appspot.com" ms=524 cpu_ms=653 app_engine_release=1.9.1 
> instance=00c61b117cba60538fb23680a47f80274ea0f87c
>
> W 2014-03-23 22:22:28.979
> EXCEPTION 
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException
> at 
> com.google.appengine.runtime.Request.process-2d7277af35f37ae4(Request.java)
> at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:360)
> at org.mortbay.util.Loader.loadClass(Loader.java:91)
> at org.mortbay.util.Loader.loadClass(Loader.java:71)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.Holder.doStart(Holder.java:73)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.ServletHolder.doStart(ServletHolder.java:242)
> at 
> org.mortbay.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:50)
> at 
> org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.initialize(ServletHandler.java:685)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.Context.startContext(Context.java:140)
> at 
> org.mortbay.jetty.webapp.WebAppContext.startContext(WebAppContext.java:1250)
> at 
> org.mortbay.jetty.handler.ContextHandler.doStart(ContextHandler.java:517)
> at org.mortbay.jetty.webapp.WebAppContext.doStart(WebAppContext.java:467)
> at 
> org.mortbay.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:50)
> at 
> com.google.tracing.TraceContext$TraceContextRunnable.runInContext(TraceContext.java:437)
> at 
> com.google.tracing.TraceContext$TraceContextRunnable$1.run(TraceContext.java:444)
> at com.google.tracing.CurrentContext.runInContext(CurrentContext.java:188)
> at 
> com.google.tracing.TraceContext$AbstractTraceContextCallback.runInInheritedContextNoUnref(TraceContext.java:308)
> at 
> com.google.tracing.TraceContext$AbstractTraceContextCallback.runInInheritedContext(TraceContext.java:300)
> at 
> com.google.tracing.TraceContext$TraceContextRunnable.run(TraceContext.java:441)
> at java.lang.Thread
> ...

-- 
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] Re: New Pricing

[Philip]

It would be great if Google would have changed the prices for bandwidth as 
well. Its sad there is no volume discount.

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:44:52 PM UTC+1, pdknsk wrote:
>
> The most significant changes I spotted.
>
> Instances hours base price is reduced from $0.08 to $0.05 now.
> Blobstore reduced from $0.13 to $0.026 am I reading this right?! Also 
> applies to Logs and Taskstore, both $0.24 previously.
> Dedicated Memcache price halved.
> Small datastore operations free!
>
> No MB increase for instances unfortunately.
>

-- 
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] Re: Best way to update 400,000 entities at once?

[Philip Lodine]

Check out the documentation on App Engine's map/reduce infrastructure -- it 
takes care of mapping across all of your entities and doing what you want 
to each of them.

Best,

Phil

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Python urlfetch suddenly stopped working

[philip . gladstone]

Vinny

Unfortunately python urlfetch does not have any cache bypass options that I 
can see. I tried fetching from a different name for the same server, and 
that didn't work. The server doesn't have anything funny in front of it

I have worked around it now by creating a specific ipv6 only name for my 
server, and now appengine can reach it.

I also wrote another endpoint in my app that does a fetch call to any site, 
and it appears that I can get to any site apart from my server. This seems 
very weird indeed. 

After some more investigation, I can see the inbound SYN from appengine and 
the responding SYN-ACK, but never the next packet from appengine. This 
feels like some sort of ip routing problem....

Philip


On Friday, November 1, 2013 11:49:55 PM UTC-4, Vinny P wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, >
>  wrote:
>
>> I seem to recall that there is a proxy between appengine instances and 
>> the internet, and I'm wondering if this has problems. 
>>
>>
>
> There is a caching layer, but it usually doesn't cause this type of 
> problem. It's worth ruling it out though.
>
> You can force urlfetches to avoid pulling from cache by setting the 
> appropriate fetch settings. This varies by language; for instance in Java 
> you can call URLConnection.setDefaultUseCaches and 
> URLConnection.setUseCaches to false.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, >
>  wrote:
>
>> This is always trying to fetch data from my server. 
>>
>
>
> Does your other server have any CDNs or proxies in front of it? They may 
> be dropping the incoming connections.
>
>  
> -
> -Vinny P
> Technology & Media Advisor
> Chicago, IL
>
> App Engine Code Samples: http://www.learntogoogleit.com
>  
>

-- 
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] Python urlfetch suddenly stopped working

[philip . gladstone]

As of a few hours ago (may 10:00 UTC on Movember 1), urlfetch (from a 
python instance) stopped working. It now always returns a 
DeadlIneExceededError after 5 seconds.

This is always trying to fetch data from my server. I tried doing a similar 
fetch from another appengine instance, and it also fails.

This site is accessible both through IPv4 and IPv6. At my server, I am 
still getting requests from other places on the internet on both IPv4 and 
IPv6 -- so it appears that the problem is not with my server.

I seem to recall that there is a proxy between appengine instances and the 
internet, and I'm wondering if this has problems. 

I can provide the instance name if that would help

Thanks

Philip

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] what is future of GAE?

[Philip Kilner]

Hi,

On 24/10/13 20:08, Vinny P wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jeff Schnitzer  > wrote:
>
> It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th, 1997.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Ashwini
> Krishna  > wrote:
>
> what is future of GAE?
>
>
>
> It's been self aware for 16 years? Uh oh... does anyone know how to
> contact the Terminator?

sudo apt-get install terminator ?

;-)

--

P


-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] not working www.myapp-id.appspot.com while using https

[Philip Kilner]

Hi Naveen,

On 26/04/13 06:29, Naveen Mamidala wrote:

  In my app engine application am using domain appspot.com, and enabled
https. After this all redirect urls are working fine with https.
But my problem is when am trying to access www.myapp-id.appspot.com it
should redirect to https://myapp-id.appspot.com, but am
faceing below problem



The issue is the "www", as in that format your full URL would match 
"*.*.appspot.com", but not "*.appspot.com".


Apparently this used to work, but is no longer supported: -


https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/google-appengine/u2Tmtv8W6Bo

However, the part of your question I don't understand is the statement 
that it "should redirect" - are you implementing the redirect yourself 
to catch people who add "www" when it is not required, are you expecting 
that to be automatic, or something else?



--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Outage - Python 2.7, HRD. CloudSQL

[Philip Kilner]

Hi John,

On 03/03/13 16:01, johnP wrote:

There are lots of posts lately about bad serving performance across many
configurations.  There have also lots of posts questioning why Google
has not acknowledged any of the posts.



All true.

It's probably worth mentioning out that this is a simple CRUD app - it 
really isn't doing anything exotic. The only thing on "my" side that I 
can see affecting it is the Cloud SQL connection code in the framework, 
although I'd hardly expect that to suddenly stop working.


Fortunately, this app is portable and is currently in the process of 
being commissioned, so I can move it temporarily without significant 
impact on the customer. If it were not for the fact that I've planned 
for that contingency, this situation would very serious indeed.




There are clearly serving issues.  There is clearly no reaction, over an
extended period of time.



Well, I've been tracking this forum and the situation for a couple of 
years, an have gone into it with my eyes open and a "Plan B" all ready 
to roll, so I'm prepared - but the response to this will be a bit of a 
litmus test.



--

Regards,

PhilK


e: p...@xfr.co.uk - m: 07775 796 747

'work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation'
- alasdair gray

--
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Outage - Python 2.7, HRD. CloudSQL

[Philip Kilner]

Hi All,

My app has now been down for 48 hours, and since no-one else here seems 
to have the same issue or severity, so have posted a production issue 
here: -


https://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=8918

If you /do/ have the same issue, please star!


--

Regards,

PhilK


e: p...@xfr.co.uk - m: 07775 796 747

'work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation'
- alasdair gray

--
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[google-appengine] Outage - Python 2.7, HRD. CloudSQL

[Philip Kilner]

Hi,

I've had an outage now since approximately 00:50am UK time - Pingdom 
tells me that the app is up and down, but in reality it isn't serving pages.


Looking at logs, I see a wide variety of errors, even though every hit 
is to the home page or redirected to the login page (just monitor hist 
and login attempts).


It really isn't consistent enough for me to feel that my previously 
happy app has an issue, and in fact the errors are primarily time-outs 
or throw tracebacks related to framework code making a DB connection.


Errors spotted so far are are: -

- "Deadline exceeded"

- "Exceeded soft private memory limit with 154.66 MB after servicing 1 
requests total"


- "File 
"/python27_runtime/python27_lib/versions/1/google/storage/speckle/python/api/rdbms.py", 
line 967, in _MakeRetriableRequest

raise _ToDbApiException(sql_exception)
InternalError: (0L, u'Connection is already in use.')"

...none of which I've seen before.

I'm hoping matters will improve, and fortunately am not (yet) under too 
much pressure but wanted to ask: -


- Is anyone else seeing this?

- Is there a known issue with Cloud SQL? (When it gets as far as an 
error, RDBMS connection seems to be the issue)


- Is there anything useful I can do other than wait?



--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[google-appengine] Re: Strange ip address from blacklist page.

[Philip]

Its the cron job or the task queue.

On 21 Feb., 10:36, doright  wrote:
> yes, I was just looking at that today too, and also noticed an always high
> number from 0.1.0.3
>
> Anyone know what its doing? is it google?
>
> appid 'mybikeshopmanager'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:02:47 PM UTC+1, Reiot wrote:
>
> > Yesterday I accidentally found that strange ip address "0.1.0.3" from
> > blacklist page. Sometimes they are overwhelmed count than rest requests.
>
> > 
>
> > I guess these are from google internal servers, like warm up requests...
> > Am I right?  Or maybe search engine?
>
> > Does anyone know exact meaning of these requests?
>
>
>
>  blacklist.png
> 10KAnzeigenHerunterladen

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Every day around 9.10 AM Brussels time, huge drop in GAE performances

[Philip Kilner]

Hi Again,

On 11/02/13 08:33, Philip Kilner wrote:

There was certainly something odd going on, around 8am UK time today -
from my PoV, it started at or a whisker before 8am GMT, and lasted c.20
mins.



Spoke too soon - am still getting anomalous behaviour, specifically 
spinning (un-served) requests, and console reports no instances - looks 
like it's having trouble spinning up instances to serve requests. It's 
improving over time, but is still not what I'd expect.


Based on what I'm seeing, I'm astonished that this does not show as a 
spike in the latency on the status page.



--

Regards,

PhilK


e: p...@xfr.co.uk - m: 07775 796 747

'work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation'
- alasdair gray

--
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Every day around 9.10 AM Brussels time, huge drop in GAE performances

[Philip Kilner]

Hi,

On 11/02/13 08:20, gafal wrote:

It's happening AGAIN!!
the instances that are spun up are unable to serve any request!

*H E L P*

This is not acceptable!!



I've just experienced something similar: -

- The app was apparently temporarily frozen.
- Browsers just showed a "loading" spinner.
- Console showed no instances.
- The bulk import that I was running aborted with error, but it's not 
100% clear to me right now whether that was the same issue.


There was certainly something odd going on, around 8am UK time today - 
from my PoV, it started at or a whisker before 8am GMT, and lasted c.20 
mins.


Will star issue.


--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: cannot run app engine

[Philip Kilner]

Hi,

On 30/01/13 08:29, Joyce Santiago wrote:

WHERE I CAN FIND THE TERMINAL? HELP ME GUYS! THIS IS MY FIRST TO CREATE
APPS.



What OS are you one? Windows / Linux / OSX / Other?

The answer is different for each platform...


--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[google-appengine] Re: is email sending using the mail.send_mail not working in production now?

[Philip]

This seemed to be an issue with Google App Engine not sending mail using 
the integrated mail service. It's working again now (email is being 
delivered). I don't think I made any changes that would affect mail 
deliverability, but it is going through again now.

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:42:11 PM UTC-7, pdknsk wrote:
>
> Google Apps? 
>

-- 
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/-/sNSPuauUtNIJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 email sending using the mail.send_mail not working in production now?

[Philip]

I have an app that was sending email ok. Now it's not. I'm still testing 
this new app, so it's not a big deal, but, I think the app engine email 
system is not delivering email right now.

Note: I do get the message "sent email to: ..." in the app engine log but 
the email is not being delivered and I have tried different email addresses.

Also, I have checked the App Engine status page at 
http://code.google.com/status/appengine and it says Mail is "Normal". Is 
there a way to alert google to a potential service issue other than here?

-- 
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/-/pUHPr_tzyj0J.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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 Google Cloud API for App Engine

[Philip]

What happens if someone sends lots of clouds to your home and tries to
flood it? There should also be an umbrella service!

On Apr 1, 12:54 pm, Sami Lehtinen  wrote:
> Hi App Engine users.
>
> I think this is exactly what I 
> need.http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2012/04/google-cloud-api-cloud-co...
> Keep up the good work.
>
>  - Thanks
>
> Best regards,
> Sami Lehtinenhttp://www.sami-lehtinen.net/

-- 
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: Seeing huge delays on task queue execution - 13sec+ per task

[Philip]

As far as I know Task Queue is built on top of the regular datastore.
How about providing HR Task Queue - a Task Queue built on top of high
replication datastore?

On Mar 28, 10:46 pm, vlad  wrote:
> steve, well said. I did not read Robert's interview but I also think of
> TaskQueue as a last "breakthrough" feature. Since then GAE had released a
> ton of stuff, but besides File/Blob API, most of it was ...meh - Just my 2c
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:45:12 AM UTC-7, stevep wrote:
>
> > Gopal: Sadly your conclusion is entirely incorrect.
>
> > As Vlad noted, task queue execution can be highly unpredictable, and
> > has been for ages. Unfortunately this has been, and perhaps always
> > will be, a customer issue that GAE engineers/PMs never address. The
> > irony is that as Robert Kluin pointed out in his recently published
> > interview, task queues are a primary, standout feature of GAE. Like
> > much of GAE, however, the promise is there, the enterprise-level
> > polish is not. -stevep
>
> > On Mar 27, 6:48 pm, Gopal Patel  wrote:
> > > i think this happen only when they release a new version of app engine.
> > so
> > > it linked to app wise upgrade.
>
> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:30 AM, vlad  wrote:
> > > > I have been screaming about this for a looong time. The offcial
> > position
> > > > of GAE team is - we don't guarantee on time execution. Even though
> > this
> > > > issue is not about on time execution but rather about
> > bugs/inefficiency of
> > > > their scheduler. They just closed my ticket about that. Feel free to
> > star
>
> > > >http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=7185
> > > >http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=4901
>
> > > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:25:51 AM UTC-7, Jan Zawadzki / Hapara
> > wrote:
>
> > > >> Is anyone else seeing these delays?
>
> > > >> Jan
>
> > > >  --
> > > > 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/-/AeanzAICxSAJ.
>
> > > > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
>
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Re: Enabling edge cache - what am I missing

[Philip]

self.response.headers['Cache-Control'] = 'public, max-age=300'

Use a = instead of a :

On 11 Mrz., 08:16, Kurt  wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am having a tough time getting edge caching to work.
>
> I have a simple handler that does:
>
>         self.response.headers['Cache-Control'] = 'public, max-age:300'
>         self.response.headers['Pragma'] = 'Public'
>
> My app is:
>
> * hosted on a custom domain
> * billing enabled
>
> But all I see are 200's in the logs.  With edge cache, I should see
> 204s.
>
> Is there something I am missing?

-- 
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] Which CapabilitySet checks go with HRD?

[Philip]

I used to use...

from google.appengine.api.capabilities import CapabilitySet
if (settings.MAINTENANCE_MODE or
not CapabilitySet('datastore_v3',
  capabilities=['write']).is_enabled() or
not CapabilitySet('memcache',
methods=['set']).is_enabled()):

...to determine if app engine was in maintenance mode.

Now that I have migrated apps to use HRD, instead of the old Master/
Slave datastore, what capability set checks should I use to determine
if the app should be set automatically in maintenance mode?

-- 
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: How do I make an app private?

[Philip]

Use "login: admin" within the app.yaml ->
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/config/appconfig.html

On Feb 23, 5:54 pm, phunkysai  wrote:
> I have created a Google App Engine app that serves as a proxy so that
> I can access websites at work. The only problem is, other people have
> discovered my app and are making it go over quota every day.
>
> Is there a way to set the app as private so that only I have access to
> 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.

[google-appengine] Re: Billing - credit, prepay, minimum ammonits and VAT Invoices

[Philip]

I'm not quite sure what you mean with "EU VAT Invoice" exactly but
from my understanding you can be billed under consideration of your
VAT ID. When you enable billing for your app the first time it is
possible to enter your VAT ID. As far as I know you will be charged
from Google Ireland instead of Google Inc. if you do this. This should
also result in 0% taxes for European users. However, you can only
enter the VAT ID when you enable billing the first time. Because of
that I'm currently paying 20% tax on my GAE bill :(

On Feb 23, 12:33 pm, Janusz Skonieczny 
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It have been a while since billing issues where raised and discussed
> here and I have concerns that there is nothing going on to correct
> those.
>
> There is no item on the road 
> map:http://code.google.com/intl/pl/appengine/docs/roadmap.html
>
> There are filed issues:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=6994http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=1650http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=1999
>
> I think that GAE team should consider this a priority since leaving
> the preview and setting up new prices.
>
> Personally having no way of entering expenses due to lack of the VAT
> Invoice is the biggest issue, then is the issue of charging small
> amounts. These two double the cost of using GAE.
>
> Please provide and ETA for requested features:
>
> 1. EU VAT Invoice - need for expense entering
> 2. Minimum amount charged - charging no less than X$, no more silly
> 0.0x $ charges
> 3. Monthly billing - be easy on our accountants
> 4. Prepaid credit - allow us to minimise the payment and invoice
> processing costs with prepaying a significant amount every one for a
> while
>
> PS. Sorry for the new thread, I wanted to summarise things here so
> people could find and star the issues.

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

[google-appengine] Re: Does free quota still allow for "roughly 5 million pageviews a month for an efficient application"?

[Philip]

Edge Cache does not provide free bandwidth, you have to pay the same
price for Edge Cached content.

The 1GB is a daily quota not a monthly quota.

On Feb 23, 7:25 pm, Mark Ivey  wrote:
> According tohttp://code.google.com/appengine/kb/general.html#quota,
> the free quota should allow for "roughly 5 million pageviews a month
> for an efficient application." Is that still true after the September
> 2011 pricing changes?
>
> If it is true, how can 5 million pageviews be achieved with only 1 GB
> outgoing bandwidth? That's only 200 bytes per view. (and free apps
> don't get to take advantage of Google's edge cache [1]).
>
> [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP-kjrx9CRE

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

Re: [google-appengine] How do I get the GoBS security that is needed to be in compliance with German law for business applications electronically storing invoices?

[Philip Kilner]

Hi Martin,

On 22/02/2012 12:13, AX Business Solutions AG wrote:

In Germany there is
a law called GoBS that regulates the security for storing data that is
required for storing invoices. E.g. it says that the data only is
allowed to be stored on places withing Europe. What do I have to do -
whom do I have to contact - to ensure this.



I'm in the UK, but the data protection regime is broadly similar here.

The two things you need to know are: -

- Although Google don't say "all of GAE is in Maintain View, CA", they 
do say it's all in a "North American Data Centre" - so your data will 
certainly be in the USA.


- There is a "Safe Harbour" provision that covers this case, so I 
/believe/ (IANAL!) that you will be compliant.


See here: -

http://export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018365.asp

...for example.

HTH


--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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: Potential Feature Request Memcache Allocation and Delayed Writes

[Philip]

Brandon: http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=6078

On Nov 25, 3:20 am, "Brandon Wirtz"  wrote:
> Nick can you confirm my suspicion that MemCache does not scale in size with
> the number of instances?
>
> The bigger ask here was really the ability to specify a size of memcache.
> The preferred Muli-tenant model breaks down if a shared resource doesn't
> scale with the "load" . If I have 1 gig of data being accessed daily
> memcache helps a lot.  When I push 6 gigs a day my cache hit ratio falls to
> nothing.  So right now I'm far better with lots of apps optimized for
> 500-ish megs of unique data than I am one at 60gigs.   That feels backwards
> of what I want in a cloud environment.
>
> If there my assumption is wrong I need to go looking at why this is
> happening.
>
> From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nick Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:52 PM
> To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Potential Feature Request Memcache
> Allocation and Delayed Writes
>
> Hi Brandon,
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Brandon Wirtz  wrote:
>
> Realizing my app is different than from most everybody elses..
>
> I got to thinking about the thread where we were talking about reading keys
> from memcache. I know all the reasons this is a bad idea.  But I got to
> thinking what if it wasn't?
>
> My app is just a big optimized cache, but I rely on the 3 tiers of storage
> to make it all work and do so quickly. The sum of all the data for the day
> is about 2 gigs. In a virtual machine environment I would typically allocate
> a bunch of ram and every so often dump that to longer term storage, but
> since most my caching is measured in minutes, some is in days, and the
> longest I ever care about data is a month. the only reason I need long term
> storage is so that when the memory gets reset, or a new "instance" comes
> online that I don't have a 100% miss rate.
>
> The system you describe won't evict data unless you explicitly choose to do
> so - you are in full control of cache eviction. This is not the case for
> memcache, where memcache may choose to evict items without notice. I don't
> think your proposal really applies to memcache, since by the time you do
> your 'dump', some indeterminate amount of your original data will have
> already been evicted from the cache.
>
> A much better approach if you don't mind data loss is a write-behind cache,
> where you schedule a task to write the data to the datastore after each time
> you update it in memcache.
>
> -Nick Johnson
>
> Why can't I do that with Memcache? Allocate 2 gigs, populate it with data
> only on a version change. Once a day take all the values and dump them back
> to datastore so that if the world ends that I don't have to start from
> nothing. (maybe only write all the values that have an expiration so many
> hours away)
>
> Since Backends share Memcache this "long" operation could be a scheduled
> task and execute in the background.
>
> In my case this would save a lot of cycles since my writes are Local Memory,
> MemCache, Datastore.  And I do so with every piece of data because I can't
> count on getting a hit from Memory or MemCache because of their volatility.
>
> But if I had a set amount of Memcache I wouldn't need to worry, it wouldn't
> be volatile, and Google Could charge me for the resource.  Doesn't even have
> to be perfectly non-volatile because even if I only "back-up" 75% of the
> data that's fine it is just a cache.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>  .
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> --
> Nick Johnson, Developer Programs Engineer, App Engine
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Re: DDOS attack question

[Philip]

You define a maximum budget, no matter what happens you won't be
charged for more than the defined budget.

On Nov 22, 11:23 am, Jan Muller  wrote:
> Hi, I have one easy question. What will happen, if someone do a ddos attack
> against my appengine application where i have enabled billing? It would
> cost me an enormous money, wouldn`t it?
>
> Regards
> Honza

-- 
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: Should I be concerned?

[Philip]

Quote from the internets "The U.S. begins Daylight Saving Time at 2:00
a.m. local time on the second sunday in March and reverts to Standard
Time at 2:00 a.m. local time on the first Sunday in November."

On Nov 6, 12:33 pm, mscwd01  wrote:
> No it's still unseasonably warm here in the UK...
>
> On Nov 6, 11:27 am, Philip  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Winter time?
>
> > On Nov 6, 11:51 am, mscwd01  wrote:
>
> > > Hey
>
> > > I am testing out a new app and noticed whilst looking at my reports
> > > that for a period of approximately 1 hour all charts showed zero
> > > activity. I.e. Requests/Second, CPU Seconds Used, Instances all
> > > display zero, when they shouldn't be as the app receives a constant
> > > supply of traffic. Note: Error/Second shows no errors for that time
> > > period.
>
> > > This screenshot conveys this:http://imgur.com/QYXDW
>
> > > I have looked in my logs and during that period it shows I still
> > > received traffic and requests were handled successfully - which is
> > > puzzling.
>
> > > Has anyone else noticed such an anomaly or is this likely to be an
> > > issue with my app!
>
> > > Thanks

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

[google-appengine] Re: Should I be concerned?

[Philip]

Winter time?

On Nov 6, 11:51 am, mscwd01  wrote:
> Hey
>
> I am testing out a new app and noticed whilst looking at my reports
> that for a period of approximately 1 hour all charts showed zero
> activity. I.e. Requests/Second, CPU Seconds Used, Instances all
> display zero, when they shouldn't be as the app receives a constant
> supply of traffic. Note: Error/Second shows no errors for that time
> period.
>
> This screenshot conveys this:http://imgur.com/QYXDW
>
> I have looked in my logs and during that period it shows I still
> received traffic and requests were handled successfully - which is
> puzzling.
>
> Has anyone else noticed such an anomaly or is this likely to be an
> issue with my app!
>
> Thanks

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

[google-appengine] Re: data just a bit over free quota

[Philip]

What will happen if Google will raise the free quota to 1.5gb for you
and you exceed it by 10mb? Should they raise it again and again? Just
pay for the 130mb of space you use. It should be 0.3796$/year if I
calculated it correctly.

On Nov 1, 9:43 pm, Andrei  wrote:
> One of the apps has 1.13Gb of data and is not going to grow
> It's non profit app
> Can I still run it for free with new pricing?
> Thanks

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

[google-appengine] Re: Is GAE still using old pricing scheme ?

[Philip]

Hey Greg,

how do we avoid over-quota errors if we cannot edit the budget for
instance hours?

On Oct 31, 7:16 pm, "Gregory D'alesandre"  wrote:
> Just a slight change, the new pricing will actually kick in on Nov 7th.  We
> are sending out an email to all admins or running applications about this
> tomorrow.  If you have any questions on this, please let me know!
>
> Greg D'Alesandre
> Senior Product Manager, Google App Engine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Philip  wrote:
> > "me" must be misinformed :-)
> > The new pricing will kick in tomorrow.
>
> > On Oct 31, 9:20 am, Prashant  wrote:
> > > Hi,
>
> > > My GAE apps still show old quota limits. According to me new pricing and
> > > quota schemes should be applicable by now. If it is not, when it is going
> > > to be effective from ?
>
> > > --
> > > Prashant
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Google App Engine" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Re: Is GAE still using old pricing scheme ?

[Philip]

"me" must be misinformed :-)
The new pricing will kick in tomorrow.

On Oct 31, 9:20 am, Prashant  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My GAE apps still show old quota limits. According to me new pricing and
> quota schemes should be applicable by now. If it is not, when it is going
> to be effective from ?
>
> --
> Prashant

-- 
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: I should not Pay Tax in Google app Engine

[Philip]

As far as I understood you are doing business with Google Ireland if
you enter a valid European VAT ID. If that's the case no European
users have to pay tax for using GAE except the Irish.

On Oct 26, 1:28 am, "hector@ISB"  wrote:
> I don't think your resident status dictates if you pay taxes or not.  You
> are doing business with a US company, and paying for services rendered.  I
> agree that you would have to deal with the IRS directly if there is such an
> exemption.

-- 
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: I should not Pay Tax in Google app Engine

[Philip]

Whats the name of that form Brandon?

On Oct 25, 6:04 am, "Brandon Wirtz"  wrote:
> There is a form you can fill out with the US Government to get your tax
> back.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
>
> [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 8:31 PM
> To: Google App Engine
> Subject: [google-appengine] Re: I should not Pay Tax in Google app Engine
>
> On Oct 23, 10:38 am, Stéphane Cohen  wrote:
> > However, as I am not a US resident I am not suposed to pay this tax.
>
> This is going to become a significant problem when the new billing starts.
> Google might like to think about being able to set accounts as non-resident
> and not billing those accounts for tax.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Re: I should not Pay Tax in Google app Engine

[Philip]

If you have a european VAT ID GAE is tax free under some
circumstances. However, you can't edit the VAT ID, so even if you get
one you won't have any benefits.

On Oct 22, 11:38 pm, Stéphane Cohen  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> every week GAE is sending be an invoice for the price of resources
> consumed + US tax for the app ID : share-gmail-contacts
>
> However, as I am not a US resident I am not suposed to pay this tax.
>
> Can you revise my account in order to bill me my resource consumtion
> WITHOUT tax?
>
> Thanks

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

[google-appengine] Re: high replication datastore limited to 1 write per second?!

[Philip]

Knowing about shards, I like them to be transparent when possible.
Using defined entity groups everywhere I write data gives me control,
but also seems to be an extra step in the model design that would have
major implications if I wanted to change them. With the limited
capabilities of GQL, reorganizing data appears to be a major chore
with the datastore.

In the world of shared data, having a design of one entity group per
user seems too limiting. I will try to design the entity groups around
the sharing model (what is shared) and hopefully not the opposite
(where technology drives the business decisions rather than the other
way around).

Thank you all for the good answers.

On Oct 21, 1:37 pm, Jeff Schnitzer  wrote:
> You have a mild conceptual misunderstanding - you are always using entity
> groups whenever you use the datastore, both for M/S and HR.  If you do
> nothing special, every entity will go into its own entity group so you can
> write to each one at 1/sec.  But this involves tradeoffs WRT transactions
> and eventual consistency.
>
> Another alternative is to put your entire database in a single entity group,
> which gives you perfect consistency and transactionality but limits you to 1
> write per second.  Obviously this is pretty preposterous, so in reality you
> will need to create a balance of entity grouping.  The rule of thumb of "one
> user's data" is not a bad one, but it's not a hard and fast rule.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Philip  wrote:
> > So that's what seems odd to me. The HR datastore is best used with
> > entity groups and yet there is such a huge limit on its throughput.
>
> > Since we can't rely on memcached values staying around (since they
> > might be purged at any time), there seems to be no decent workaround
> > for having immediately consistent reads (in case memcache is purged)
> > without being limited to 1 write per second.
>
> > Do I have that write (pun intended)?
>
> > On Oct 21, 12:32 pm, Steve Sherrie  wrote:
> > > This just refers to the entity group write limit that is the same in
> > > both MS and HR datastores.
>
> > > On 11-10-21 03:30 PM, Philip wrote:
>
> > > > I am concerned about the statement:
>
> > > > "This allows queries on a single guestbook to be strongly consistent,
> > > > but also limits changes to the guestbook to * 1 write per second *
> > > > (the supported limit for entity groups)."
> > > >http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/hr/overview.html
> > .
>
> > > > Is it true that writes are limited to 1 per second when using the high
> > > > replication datastore or is this an old limitation?
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Google App Engine" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Re: high replication datastore limited to 1 write per second?!

[Philip]

So that's what seems odd to me. The HR datastore is best used with
entity groups and yet there is such a huge limit on its throughput.

Since we can't rely on memcached values staying around (since they
might be purged at any time), there seems to be no decent workaround
for having immediately consistent reads (in case memcache is purged)
without being limited to 1 write per second.

Do I have that write (pun intended)?

On Oct 21, 12:32 pm, Steve Sherrie  wrote:
> This just refers to the entity group write limit that is the same in
> both MS and HR datastores.
>
> On 11-10-21 03:30 PM, Philip wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am concerned about the statement:
>
> > "This allows queries on a single guestbook to be strongly consistent,
> > but also limits changes to the guestbook to * 1 write per second *
> > (the supported limit for entity groups)."
> >http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/hr/overview.html.
>
> > Is it true that writes are limited to 1 per second when using the high
> > replication datastore or is this an old limitation?

-- 
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] high replication datastore limited to 1 write per second?!

[Philip]

I am concerned about the statement:

"This allows queries on a single guestbook to be strongly consistent,
but also limits changes to the guestbook to * 1 write per second *
(the supported limit for entity groups)."
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/hr/overview.html.

Is it true that writes are limited to 1 per second when using the high
replication datastore or is this an old limitation?

-- 
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] do cross group transactions alleviate the need for entity parents (ancestors)?

[Philip]

I am converting an app to the high replication datastore. I have read
that each entity needs to have a parent in order to have consistent
reads in queries that return multiple entities.

1. If I use a cross group transaction does that make queries
immediately consistent even if added entities don't have parents
(ancestors)?

2. Does using a parent (an ancestor query) speed up queries that
return multiple entities?

3. Should I just be using parents and regular (single entity group)
transactions instead of cross group transactions for performance
reasons?

-- 
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: help with managing custom domains in Google Apps

[Philip]

Never mind. I figured it out.

Even though I had the mydomain2.com alias verified using Google Apps,
I needed to use the "base" domain (mydomain1.com) for the Google Apps
account to start the process of associating the Google App Engine apps
with Google Apps.

On Oct 21, 1:27 am, Philip  wrote:
> I want to manage multiple domains and applications in a single Google
> Apps account, if possible.
>
> Here is what I would like to manage in a single Google Apps account
> (i.e. dashboard):
>
> www.mydomain1.com         ->   app engine app 01
>
> www.mydomain2.com         ->   app engine app 02
>
> api.mydomain2.com                       ->   app engine app 03
>
> developers.mydomain2.com        ->   app engine app 04
>
> 1. Is there a way to do this with Google Apps?
>
> 2. Do I need to have 2 different accounts, one for mydomain1 and
> another for mydomain2?
>
> 3. Also, the management console seems to limit me to one application.
> How do I map multiple applications?
>
> Thank you for your help.

-- 
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] help with managing custom domains in Google Apps

[Philip]

I want to manage multiple domains and applications in a single Google
Apps account, if possible.

Here is what I would like to manage in a single Google Apps account
(i.e. dashboard):

www.mydomain1.com   ->  app engine app 01

www.mydomain2.com   ->  app engine app 02

api.mydomain2.com   ->  app engine app 03

developers.mydomain2.com->  app engine app 04

1. Is there a way to do this with Google Apps?

2. Do I need to have 2 different accounts, one for mydomain1 and
another for mydomain2?

3. Also, the management console seems to limit me to one application.
How do I map multiple applications?

Thank you for your help.

-- 
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: How many times did Google Apps Engine went down since it's launch

[Philip]

Joshua, your calculation is wrong. A year has 8760 hours, 0.05% of
that time the service can be down -> 8760 * 0.0005 = 4.38 hours of
downtime.

On Oct 8, 7:52 pm, Joshua Smith  wrote:
> Google had a lot of trouble with their original database, known as M/S.  It 
> was responsible for the downtime you heard about.
>
> So they invented a new database, known as HR, and it has never gone down 
> since they released it.
>
> So if you use HR (which is the default for new projects), history suggests 
> that you will not see outages.
>
> But be realistic: Everything goes down. Everything. There is no 100% uptime 
> guarantee.  Google is promising 99.95% which means they are OK with 438 hours 
> of downtime a year. And that's only a soft promise (like most SLAs, your 
> recourse is negligible if you suffer losses because of their failures).
>
> I'm quite sure that GAE on HR has better uptime than I could achieve with 
> anything I could build and manage.
>
> On Oct 8, 2011, at 11:42 AM, ahmed adel wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > What do you mean by HR?
>
> > What I meant is , If I have application hosted in Google Apps Engine ,
> > will it be affected in the future for example due to data center crash
> > like what happened before.
>
> > We will need this application be available starting from 7 AM to 1 PM
> > Cairo time. because of this I am asking about the crash time in Google
> > Apps engine.
>
> > I am asking this because my manager wanna be sure our app won't be
> > available for use. (internal and external).
>
> > Also I heard that Google apps engine was down many times and according
> > to this many companies changed the host from Apps engine to another
> > PAAS provider.
>
> > Another reason for my question is I suggested to develop over Google
> > Apps Engine for our Customers , but also I told Our management that we
> > can not trust Google Apps Engine to do this for now , because as you
> > know and correct me if I am wrong (Google don't care much about Apps
> > Engine Support)
>
> > so my question will be now , can I trust Google Apps engine to use it
> > for our Clients? in case of yes or no please tell me reasons for your
> > answer.
>
> > On Oct 6, 7:50 pm, Joshua Smith  wrote:
> >> Depends how you define "down."
>
> >> If you only consider HR, it hasn't gone completely down ever.  Some bugs 
> >> have happened (like losing the ability to send mail to gmail addresses 
> >> with .'s in them) which reduced functionality for HR, and there have been 
> >> times when you could not update your app.  But I don't think HR has ever 
> >> stopped serving since it was introduced.
>
> >> M/S has been down lots of times, sometimes for extended periods. But 
> >> that's irrelevant if you are using HR, which you should be if you care 
> >> about downtime.
>
> >> -Joshua
>
> >> On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:42 PM, ahmed adel wrote:
>
> >>> I need to know how many time did Google apps engine went down since
> >>> launching this service also I need to know for how many hours and what
> >>> is the time exactly.
>
> >>> Also I need to know your opinion about the below.
>
> >>> We are planning to develop a product over Google apps  engine , a big
> >>> project actually for our company.
>
> >>> so should I start using Google apps engine or should I use another
> >>> PAAS and if so what is the recommended PAAS.
>
> >>> thx
>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> >>> "Google App Engine" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> >>> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> For more options, visit this group 
> >>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> > "Google App Engine" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group 
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

Re: [google-appengine] Adhering to data privacy laws with Appengine

[Philip Kilner]

Hi,

Hit send too soon, meant to say that Google are signed up for the Safe 
Harbor provisions - see: -


http://www.google.com/privacy/privacy-policy.html

...under "Enforcement" (2nd to last para): -

"Google adheres to the US Safe Harbor Privacy Principles of Notice, 
Choice, Onward Transfer, Security, Data Integrity, Access and 
Enforcement, and is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 
Safe Harbor Program."


HTH

--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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] Adhering to data privacy laws with Appengine

[Philip Kilner]

Hi Richard,

On 06/10/2011 18:19, Richard Druce wrote:

We have a client who has requested that all their data stay in the EU to
adhere to data privacy laws they are governed by. Is this a possibility
in Appengine?



No, or at least not at the moment.

However, if you are referring to mainstream European Data Protection 
legislation rather than something more specialised, then see: -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Harbor_Principles

"US-EU Safe Harbor is a streamlined process for US companies to comply 
with the EU Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data.


Intended for organizations within the EU or US that store customer data, 
the Safe Harbor Principles are designed to prevent accidental 
information disclosure or loss. US companies can opt into the program as 
long as they adhere to the 7 principles outlined in the Directive."


...which may cover you if you host such data on App Engine.

IANAL, etc. etc - but worth looking into to see if it covers your 
intended usage.




--

Regards,

PhilK


'a bell is a cup...until it is struck'

--
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: Keeping sensitive information in memory

[Philip]

Check this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SCZzgfdTBo

They crush all disks.

On Oct 4, 7:07 am, Alexander Konovalenko  wrote:
> I am going to process sensitive information in my app and want to
> prevent it from ever getting written to disk in an unencrypted form. I
> hope that all disks in the Google data centers are properly sanitized
> before being disposed of (are they?). But defense in depth never
> hurts.
>
> The processing of sensitive data will occur both in front-end and
> back-end instances. The data has to be stored unencrypted in memory.
> Do the appservers running Python and Java instances use any form of
> unencrypted swap? SSD, hard disk, whatever. If so, I will file a
> feature request to provide a way to lock memory pages from being
> swapped out (using the mlock() system call). Note that even when there
> is plenty of free RAM, the OS can still swap some pages out.
>
> Alexander

-- 
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: Billing Status: Payment Due

[Philip]

I had the same issue. You have to edit the credit card and re-enter
your cvc.

On Sep 15, 7:20 am, Christopher  wrote:
> We are noticing the same on several of our accounts for the app engine
> applications. Brandon, can you please explain further? I am logged
> into Google Checkout and do not see any option for retrying anywhere.
> Thanks.
>
> On Sep 15, 12:55 am, "Brandon Wirtz"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Log in to Check out and select re-try.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
>
> > [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Yossy
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:32 PM
> > To: Google App Engine
> > Subject: [google-appengine] Billing Status: Payment Due
>
> > Hi,
>
> > My application billing status became  Payment Due.
> > My credit card has no problem.(I checked credit card company.) Please help
> > and tell me where to contact.
>
> > Thanks.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Google App Engine" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group 
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Channel API not working properly

[Philip]

I have had an app working with channels deployed to App Engine for a
while now. I have made some changes to the code and haven't isolated a
simple channels test yet, but channels appear to not be working on my
Mac using Chrome or Safari due to issues at Google. At first it
appeared to be a Safari only issue. Now, channels are not working with
either browser due to a client side (javascript) error.

Uncaught CustomError: Service for "ea" is not registered

This error is coming for google downloaded code that starts with:

369.talkgadget.google.com/talkgadget/d?

I have checked the Apps Status Dashboard (http://www.google.com/
appsstatus#hl=en) and there are no reported issues with Google Talk.

Any ideas?

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

[google-appengine] Re: Pls provide "avg latency" on current load dashboard, instead of the now unimportant "avg CPU time"

[Philip]

+ avg datastore read/write ops

Bay schrieb:
> For those who are battling with trying to minimize the cost of instances,
> maybe it would be an idea to replace the "Avg CPU (API)" with "Avg latency"
> on the "Current load" main dashboard.
>
> Then it would be possible for us to see which requests serve with long
> latency, and hence minimize or optimize these.
>
> I understand that it is possible to see that in the logs as well - however,
> now that CPU time doesn't mean anything anyway - I really don't need that to
> be on the dashboard.

-- 
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: New Pricing for high traffic apps - in our case 2x == ~$20'000 per month

[Philip]

If you take a look to you dashboards instance chart: You will be
billed for Active Instances + Max Idle Instances.
See this post: 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/727f420db5b111cc

On Sep 5, 10:49 am, Andrin von Rechenberg  wrote:
> That wont help in our case. As I tried to explain before, we need 200
> instances
> if we serve 240 qps at 800 ms. (240qps * 0.8s = ~200 instances).
> 75% of the time they are idle, waiting for rpc responses (mostly datastore)
> in
> order to handle the current response. So they need to be running and can't
> be shut
> down. At least that's our understanding. Or am I wrong?
>
> -Andrin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Philip  wrote:
> > Hi Andrin,
>
> > have you tried the Max Idle Instances knob? If you set it to 1 for
> > example you will only be billed for the instances that are used + 1
> > idle instance.
>
> > On Sep 5, 10:11 am, Andrin von Rechenberg  wrote:
> > > Hi there
>
> > > We are running a Python GAE service called MiuMeet.
>
> > > The current cost is about $296 per day. In November it will be $600 per
> > day.
>
> > > Most of our cost comes from the Frontend Instance hours. We apparently
> > need
> > > 4677h per day, thats roughly 200 instances. We peak at around 240 qps.
> > The
> > > average latency is 800ms / request. 240 * 0.8 => 192. So it seems 200
> > > instances
> > > is exactly what we need at peak.
>
> > > However our instances are only 25% active, see here:http://bit.ly/pXZH4t
>
> > > We need someone to talk to about the new pricing model and what can be
> > done.
> > > Idle instances will cost us an extra $10k per month. We can't afford
> > that.
>
> > > The biggest problem we see is that it seems that AppEngine instances are
> > > idle
> > > often by design: The datastore is slow you have to wait and idle around,
> > > that's
> > > a fact for us.
>
> > > We would be really grateful for any advice.
>
> > > -Andrin, Founder of MiuMeet
>
> > > PS: Here is our billing comparison
>
> > >   Resource Used Free Billable Charge *CPU Time:*
> > > $0.10/CPU hour 2,797.15 6.50 2,790.65 $279.07 *Bandwidth Out:*
> > > $0.12/GByte 109.32 1.00 108.32 $13.00 *Bandwidth In:*
> > > $0.10/GByte 30.55 1.00 29.55 $2.96 *Stored Data:*
> > > $0.005/GByte-day 101.13 1.00 100.13 $0.51 *Recipients Emailed:*
> > > $0.10/1000 Emails 0.00 2.00 0.00 $0.00 *High Replication Storage:*
> > > $0.008/GByte-day 109.92 0.50 109.42 $0.88 *Backend Usage:*
> > > Prices<
> >http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/billing.html#Billable_Quota_Uni...>
> > > $0.00 $0.72 $0.00 $0.00 *Always On:*
> > > $0.30/Day No - - $0.00 *Total:* $296.42
> > >  Estimated Charges Under New Pricing
>
> > > The charges below are estimates of what you would be paying once App
> > > Engine's new pricing
> > > model<http://www.google.com/enterprise/cloud/appengine/pricing.html>
> > > goes
> > > live. The amounts shown below are for your information only, they are not
> > > being charged and therefore do not affect your balance.
>
> > > If you would like to optmize your application to reduce your costs in the
> > > future, make sure to read our Optimization
> > > Article<
> >http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/managing-resources.html>.
> > > If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact us at:
> > > appengine_updated_pric...@google.com.
> > >  Frontend Instance Hour costs reflect a 50% price reduction active until
> > > November 20th, 2011.
> > >  Resource Used Free Billable Charge *Frontend Instance Hours:*
> > > $0.04/Hour 4,677.04 24.00 4,653.04 $186.13 *Backend Instance Hours:*
> > > $0.08/Hour 0.00 9.00 0.00 $0.00 *Datastore Storage:*
> > > $0.008/GByte-day 109.92 1.00 108.92 $0.88 *Blobstore Storage:*
> > > $0.0057/GByte-day 101.13 5.00 96.13 $0.55 *Datastore Writes:*
> > > $1.00/Million Ops 55.69 0.05 55.64 $55.64 *Datastore Reads:*
> > > $0.70/Million Ops 87.12 0.05 87.07 $60.95 *Small Datastore Operations:*
> > > $0.10/Million Ops 192.77 0.05 192.72 $19.28 *Bandwidth In:*
> > > $0.10/GByte 30.55 1.00 29.55 $2.96 *Bandwidth Out:*
> > > $0.15/GByte 109.32 1.00 108.32 $16.25 *Emails:*
> > > $0.01/100 Messages 0.00 1.00 0.00 $0.00 *XMPP Stanzas:*
> > > $0.01/1000 Stanzas 0.00 1.00 0.00 $0.00 *Opened Channels:*
> > > $0.01/100 Opens

[google-appengine] Re: How changing the scheduler decreased my estimated bill

[Philip]

With the changed instance knob I only seeing a 45% price increase
compared to the current price. There is still some room if I take a
look at the datastore write ops. I use some very inefficient code that
is writing way too many indexes. If I get my price increase to
something near 30% I'll ditch my plan too go to azure even though I am
sitting on packed bags.

On Sep 5, 10:28 am, "Raymond C."  wrote:
> As a result what is the change of the overall 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: New Pricing for high traffic apps - in our case 2x == ~$20'000 per month

[Philip]

Hi Andrin,

have you tried the Max Idle Instances knob? If you set it to 1 for
example you will only be billed for the instances that are used + 1
idle instance.

On Sep 5, 10:11 am, Andrin von Rechenberg  wrote:
> Hi there
>
> We are running a Python GAE service called MiuMeet.
>
> The current cost is about $296 per day. In November it will be $600 per day.
>
> Most of our cost comes from the Frontend Instance hours. We apparently need
> 4677h per day, thats roughly 200 instances. We peak at around 240 qps. The
> average latency is 800ms / request. 240 * 0.8 => 192. So it seems 200
> instances
> is exactly what we need at peak.
>
> However our instances are only 25% active, see here:http://bit.ly/pXZH4t
>
> We need someone to talk to about the new pricing model and what can be done.
> Idle instances will cost us an extra $10k per month. We can't afford that.
>
> The biggest problem we see is that it seems that AppEngine instances are
> idle
> often by design: The datastore is slow you have to wait and idle around,
> that's
> a fact for us.
>
> We would be really grateful for any advice.
>
> -Andrin, Founder of MiuMeet
>
> PS: Here is our billing comparison
>
>   Resource Used Free Billable Charge *CPU Time:*
> $0.10/CPU hour 2,797.15 6.50 2,790.65 $279.07 *Bandwidth Out:*
> $0.12/GByte 109.32 1.00 108.32 $13.00 *Bandwidth In:*
> $0.10/GByte 30.55 1.00 29.55 $2.96 *Stored Data:*
> $0.005/GByte-day 101.13 1.00 100.13 $0.51 *Recipients Emailed:*
> $0.10/1000 Emails 0.00 2.00 0.00 $0.00 *High Replication Storage:*
> $0.008/GByte-day 109.92 0.50 109.42 $0.88 *Backend Usage:*
> Prices
> $0.00 $0.72 $0.00 $0.00 *Always On:*
> $0.30/Day No - - $0.00 *Total:* $296.42
>  Estimated Charges Under New Pricing
>
> The charges below are estimates of what you would be paying once App
> Engine's new pricing
> model
> goes
> live. The amounts shown below are for your information only, they are not
> being charged and therefore do not affect your balance.
>
> If you would like to optmize your application to reduce your costs in the
> future, make sure to read our Optimization
> Article.
> If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact us at:
> appengine_updated_pric...@google.com.
>  Frontend Instance Hour costs reflect a 50% price reduction active until
> November 20th, 2011.
>  Resource Used Free Billable Charge *Frontend Instance Hours:*
> $0.04/Hour 4,677.04 24.00 4,653.04 $186.13 *Backend Instance Hours:*
> $0.08/Hour 0.00 9.00 0.00 $0.00 *Datastore Storage:*
> $0.008/GByte-day 109.92 1.00 108.92 $0.88 *Blobstore Storage:*
> $0.0057/GByte-day 101.13 5.00 96.13 $0.55 *Datastore Writes:*
> $1.00/Million Ops 55.69 0.05 55.64 $55.64 *Datastore Reads:*
> $0.70/Million Ops 87.12 0.05 87.07 $60.95 *Small Datastore Operations:*
> $0.10/Million Ops 192.77 0.05 192.72 $19.28 *Bandwidth In:*
> $0.10/GByte 30.55 1.00 29.55 $2.96 *Bandwidth Out:*
> $0.15/GByte 109.32 1.00 108.32 $16.25 *Emails:*
> $0.01/100 Messages 0.00 1.00 0.00 $0.00 *XMPP Stanzas:*
> $0.01/1000 Stanzas 0.00 1.00 0.00 $0.00 *Opened Channels:*
> $0.01/100 Opens 7,180.91 1.00 7,179.91 $71.80 *Total*:* (before clipping to
> daily budget) $414.44
>
> * Note this total does not take into account the minimum per-application
> charge in the new pricing
> model
> .

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

[google-appengine] How changing the scheduler decreased my estimated bill

[Philip]

Hi,

today the new estimated bills were available and I could see the
results of changing my scheduler. I've set Max Idle Instances to "2"
and Min Pending Latency to "automatic". As a result my instance hours
are just 20% of what it used to be with automatic idle instances.

Thats a price that I am willing to pay even though hosting on azure
would be cheaper in my case because IIS has true multi-threading. But
I am confided that the app engine team is working hard to roll out
python 2.7 to production as soon as possible.

-- 
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: Small enty level VPS and cloud based services v appengine

[Philip]

@Zutesmog
Why did you left IRC? I think its better if I send you my remarks to
the list there instead in the groups ;-)

Microsoft: The price is only correct for September. In October there
will be a 20% price cut for the smallest instance. Input bandwidth is
free and outgoing bandwidth depends on the region where your instance
is deployed: North America and Europe regions: $0.15 per GB out / Asia
Pacific Region: $0.20 per GB out

On Sep 4, 5:01 pm, Sergey Schetinin  wrote:
> AWS doesn't route EU traffic via US, that would be nuts. And the EU
> customers would be outraged too.
>
> On 4 September 2011 17:53, Barry Hunter  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > OT, but probably because if they made it much cheaper, it would be
> > huge lure for US customers (not worried about latency) to use the EU
> > data center.
>
> > But even for EU bound traffic, they probably route it to US
> > datacenters first then route it via internal networks to the EU.
> > Mainly for quality of service reasons, they have more control over
> > their internal network (even it it works via public internet) than
> > pure public internet.
>
> > So they would be paying US 'entry/exit' rates, but only charging EU rates.
>
> > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Sergey Schetinin  wrote:
> >> Amazingly enough AWS still prices their bandwidth from EU datacenter
> >> at $0.120 per GB
>
> >> On 4 September 2011 17:33, Philip  wrote:
> >>> Joshua is correct with some tuning you can improve your instance count
> >>> quite well. I have set Max Idle Instances to 2 and kept Min Pending
> >>> latency at auto and I am seeing some good results.
>
> >>> However, I still think there is needed some competition here in the US
> >>> market. Traffic is way cheaper in Europe than here. If you take a look
> >>> at the offer from Hetzner for 15$/month you'll get 2TB of traffic
> >>> included. With the new GAE pricing this could cost you about 300$
> >>> here. The OVH offer for 8€ even includes a 100MBits flatrate.
>
> >>> On Sep 4, 4:22 pm, Tim Hoffman  wrote:
> >>>> Hi Joshua
>
> >>>> Thanks for your input  I feel I can get my small instances down to the
> >>>> $9-$15 per month territory too.
> >>>> But I wanted to not have to argue that point too much here ;-)
>
> >>>> Anyone running a small instance that is well optimised should have a good
> >>>> handle on what it will cost them.
>
> >>>> So lets restate - For purposes of comparison the approximate cost for an
> >>>> appengine small app is  going to be
> >>>> anywhere from $0 (below free threshold) up to say $30 and the sweet spot
> >>>> which should be attainable by
> >>>> most apps in the category is going to be in the $9-$15 per month 
> >>>> territory
>
> >>>> Hows that sound ?
>
> >>>> Regrds
>
> >>>> Tim
>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> >>> "Google App Engine" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> >>> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> For more options, visit this group 
> >>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> >> --
> >>http://self.maluke.com/
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> >> "Google App Engine" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> >> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group 
> >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> > "Google App Engine" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group 
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> --http://self.maluke.com/

-- 
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: Small enty level VPS and cloud based services v appengine

[Philip]

Joshua is correct with some tuning you can improve your instance count
quite well. I have set Max Idle Instances to 2 and kept Min Pending
latency at auto and I am seeing some good results.

However, I still think there is needed some competition here in the US
market. Traffic is way cheaper in Europe than here. If you take a look
at the offer from Hetzner for 15$/month you'll get 2TB of traffic
included. With the new GAE pricing this could cost you about 300$
here. The OVH offer for 8€ even includes a 100MBits flatrate.

On Sep 4, 4:22 pm, Tim Hoffman  wrote:
> Hi Joshua
>
> Thanks for your input  I feel I can get my small instances down to the
> $9-$15 per month territory too.
> But I wanted to not have to argue that point too much here ;-)
>
> Anyone running a small instance that is well optimised should have a good
> handle on what it will cost them.
>
> So lets restate - For purposes of comparison the approximate cost for an
> appengine small app is  going to be
> anywhere from $0 (below free threshold) up to say $30 and the sweet spot
> which should be attainable by
> most apps in the category is going to be in the $9-$15 per month territory
>
> Hows that sound ?
>
> Regrds
>
> Tim

-- 
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: Small enty level VPS and cloud based services v appengine

[Philip]

There is a European provider called OVH. They currently host about
100k dedicated servers and also offer virtual instances. The cheapest
starts at 0.0119 € / Hour and includes 256MB Ram, 8Ghz, 5GB storage
and unmetered 100 Mbps connection: 8,8536€/month.

I think they should be in your table.

On Sep 4, 3:26 pm, Tim Hoffman  wrote:
> Hi
>
> More than a few people have said in the groups lately that appengine is
> unsuitable for entry level apps due to the new pricing schedule.
> I am not so sure, but there hasn't been any real information about the
> alternatives, so I thought I would start to collate some numbers
>
> So to that end I have included a spreadsheet here with a summary of a number
> of VPS or cloud providers solutions that I would consider
> might be suitable to run a small entry level appengine app.
>
> For the sake of the discussion you would want to run a stack that looks like
> the following
>
> linux
> nginx/apache
> a light weight stack say webapp2, pyramid, tipfy (a lightweight framework)
> an ORM (sqlobject/Storm)
> and mysql
>
> This doesn't really equate to a heroku offering, but lets say in each case
> we need a single instance of something running, 512MB at a minimum to run
> the small stack and an RDBMS , with at least 1GB of
> storage available if no OS is factored in and 5GB if the OS counts in the
> storage allocation.
>
> So here is a
> spreadsheet.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At1LTa6ONStgdExuRUl2QUdO...
>
> I know none of these compare service wise directly with appengine.  But
> these are the sort of services people name
> frequently as viable alternatives that are cheaper than appengine. So lets
> look at the reallity
>
> The equivalent appengine basic service would be a single permanently idle
> instance running 24 hours a day, plus low volume of traffic and < 1GB of
> data in the datastore. So more instances might spin up.  Under 2.7 with
> threading requests we might not see more instance start.  A $ figure to
> apply to such an appengine app
> would probably be between $30 and $40 per month.
>
> Please suggest refinements to these models, and additonal detail to go into
> the spread sheet.
>
> On the face of it I am not convinced many of these services are
> significantly cheaper than appengine especially when you take into account
> most of them
> require you to manage the complete stack.
>
> Hope this helps focus the discussion and provide some reality checks.
>
> I personally have no plans to move off appengine.  But due plan to do some
> tuning.
>
> Regards
>
> Tim

-- 
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: Small enty level VPS and cloud based services v appengine

[Philip]

There is a European provider called OVH. They currently host about
100k dedicated server and also offer virtual instances. The cheapest
starts at 0.0119 € / Hour and includes 256MB Ram, 8Ghz, 5GB storage
and unmetered Mbps connection: 8,8536€/month.

On Sep 4, 3:26 pm, Tim Hoffman  wrote:
> Hi
>
> More than a few people have said in the groups lately that appengine is
> unsuitable for entry level apps due to the new pricing schedule.
> I am not so sure, but there hasn't been any real information about the
> alternatives, so I thought I would start to collate some numbers
>
> So to that end I have included a spreadsheet here with a summary of a number
> of VPS or cloud providers solutions that I would consider
> might be suitable to run a small entry level appengine app.
>
> For the sake of the discussion you would want to run a stack that looks like
> the following
>
> linux
> nginx/apache
> a light weight stack say webapp2, pyramid, tipfy (a lightweight framework)
> an ORM (sqlobject/Storm)
> and mysql
>
> This doesn't really equate to a heroku offering, but lets say in each case
> we need a single instance of something running, 512MB at a minimum to run
> the small stack and an RDBMS , with at least 1GB of
> storage available if no OS is factored in and 5GB if the OS counts in the
> storage allocation.
>
> So here is a
> spreadsheet.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At1LTa6ONStgdExuRUl2QUdO...
>
> I know none of these compare service wise directly with appengine.  But
> these are the sort of services people name
> frequently as viable alternatives that are cheaper than appengine. So lets
> look at the reallity
>
> The equivalent appengine basic service would be a single permanently idle
> instance running 24 hours a day, plus low volume of traffic and < 1GB of
> data in the datastore. So more instances might spin up.  Under 2.7 with
> threading requests we might not see more instance start.  A $ figure to
> apply to such an appengine app
> would probably be between $30 and $40 per month.
>
> Please suggest refinements to these models, and additonal detail to go into
> the spread sheet.
>
> On the face of it I am not convinced many of these services are
> significantly cheaper than appengine especially when you take into account
> most of them
> require you to manage the complete stack.
>
> Hope this helps focus the discussion and provide some reality checks.
>
> I personally have no plans to move off appengine.  But due plan to do some
> tuning.
>
> Regards
>
> Tim

-- 
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: how to delete indexes? just in index.yaml?

[Philip]

You have to perform a vacuum_indexes operation.

On Sep 4, 10:08 am, saintthor  wrote:
> i deleted some indexes in index.yaml. uploaded. then in console
> Datastore Indexes, i see the deleted index are still serving.
>
> are they really deleted?

-- 
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: how many datastore api calls would happen in one datastore function call?

[Philip]

You have to consider the following points:

- put()
Each property the entity has will add at least 2 extra write ops if
the property is indexed (for asc and desc order)

- fetch()
Don't use the offset property; you will be charged for
(number_of_items + offset) read ops. If you need paging you have to
use cursors.

- all()
Does cost nothing because it does not interact with the datastore. If
you only need the keys of the entity's you should use the keys_only
argument.

I hope that helps.

On Sep 3, 5:07 pm, saintthor  wrote:
> how about these funtions? i use these.
>
> Model.put()  .get()  .fetch()  .count()  .gql()  .all()
>
> On 9月3日, 下午10时08分, Philip  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Provide some example code.
>
> > On Sep 3, 3:53 pm, saintthor  wrote:
>
> > > today,  till now, one of my apps get 1888 requests and 41090 datastore
> > > api calls. i think the api calls should not be so many.

-- 
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: how many datastore api calls would happen in one datastore function call?

[Philip]

Provide some example code.

On Sep 3, 3:53 pm, saintthor  wrote:
> today,  till now, one of my apps get 1888 requests and 41090 datastore
> api calls. i think the api calls should not be so many.

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

[google-appengine] Re: Please include all consumed resources into logs

[Philip]

@Gregory
Will the instance hours be included to the "Quota Details" page or the
dashboard? It is not fair if we have to wait ~4 days until we see them
in the billing history.

On Sep 3, 6:54 am, "Gregory D'alesandre"  wrote:
> Hi Daniel, that's a possibility we'll explore, we can't really include the
> Instance cost because it doesn't translate directly but the other operations
> might be possible to do.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Daniel Florey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It would be great if all the different resources that we'll have to pay for
> > would be included into the request logs (different datastore operations
> > etc.).
> > This would greatly help us to tweak the apps before the new pricing takes
> > effect.
> > Thanks a lot.
>
> > Daniel
>
> > --
> > 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/-/lnNsBDL7LbIJ.
> > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Re: Why can't I get only 1 instance enabled?

[Philip]

I just asked: We still have a maximum budget. No need to worry about
that.

On Sep 2, 8:23 pm, Stephen Johnson  wrote:
> There still needs to be a maximum. A daily rate can still be exhausted by a
> denial of service. Worse yet when AppEngine has issues such as datastore
> issues, memcache issues, task queue issues and all the other issues it has,
> it can cause your latency to rapidly increase even though your requests are
> failing. The scheduler will then start spinning up instances to serve bad
> requests and eat your daily quota for now good reason. In my opinion there
> needs to be a Max. Active Instances and also we should be able to set
> Minimum Idle Instances to zero. Not sure why it can only be set to 1.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Philip  wrote:
> > I would think that we can still specify an upper limit for instance
> > hours but some clarification would be nice.
>
> > On Sep 2, 7:59 pm, Stephen Johnson  wrote:
> > > I mean a Maximum Active Setting (not the idle setting which is useless
> > > against a denial of service attack).
>
> > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Johnson  > >wrote:
>
> > > > That's only for idle instances but if they are actively serving request
> > due
> > > > to a denial of service which is Brandon is talking about then you will
> > be
> > > > charged. There definitely needs to be a maximum setting.
>
> > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:54 AM, prgmratlarge  > >wrote:
>
> > > >> Quoting from
> > > >>http://code.google.com/appengine/kb/postpreviewpricing.html#scheduler.
> > ..
>
> > > >> Max Idle Instances: Decreasing this value will likely decrease your
> > > >> bill as fewer idle instances will typically be running and we will not
> > > >> charge for any excessive idle instances. In this case the scheduler
> > > >> knob is a suggestion to the scheduler but we will not charge you for
> > > >> excess if the scheduler ignores the suggestion. For instance, if you
> > > >> set Max Idle Instances to 5 and the scheduler leaves 16 instances up
> > > >> for some length of time, you will only be charged for 5 instances.
>
> > > >> In other words, even though there may be more than your max, you will
> > > >> only be charged for your max.
>
> > > >> On Sep 2, 1:02 pm, Seb  wrote:
> > > >> >   Hi,
>
> > > >> > I've set "Max Idle Instances: ( 1 ) "
> > > >> > and "Min Pending Latency: ( 15.0s ) "
> > > >> > but, after waiting 15 minutes, there are still 2 instances
> > presents...
>
> > > >> > The latency of the requests are less than 1 seconds...
>
> > > >> > How can I get only 1 instance???
>
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Seb.
>
> > > >> --
> > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > >> "Google App Engine" group.
> > > >> To post to this group, send email to
> > google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > >> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > >> For more options, visit this group at
> > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Google App Engine" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Re: Why can't I get only 1 instance enabled?

[Philip]

I would think that we can still specify an upper limit for instance
hours but some clarification would be nice.

On Sep 2, 7:59 pm, Stephen Johnson  wrote:
> I mean a Maximum Active Setting (not the idle setting which is useless
> against a denial of service attack).
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Johnson 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > That's only for idle instances but if they are actively serving request due
> > to a denial of service which is Brandon is talking about then you will be
> > charged. There definitely needs to be a maximum setting.
>
> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:54 AM, prgmratlarge wrote:
>
> >> Quoting from
> >>http://code.google.com/appengine/kb/postpreviewpricing.html#scheduler...
>
> >> Max Idle Instances: Decreasing this value will likely decrease your
> >> bill as fewer idle instances will typically be running and we will not
> >> charge for any excessive idle instances. In this case the scheduler
> >> knob is a suggestion to the scheduler but we will not charge you for
> >> excess if the scheduler ignores the suggestion. For instance, if you
> >> set Max Idle Instances to 5 and the scheduler leaves 16 instances up
> >> for some length of time, you will only be charged for 5 instances.
>
> >> In other words, even though there may be more than your max, you will
> >> only be charged for your max.
>
> >> On Sep 2, 1:02 pm, Seb  wrote:
> >> >   Hi,
>
> >> > I've set "Max Idle Instances: ( 1 ) "
> >> > and "Min Pending Latency: ( 15.0s ) "
> >> > but, after waiting 15 minutes, there are still 2 instances presents...
>
> >> > The latency of the requests are less than 1 seconds...
>
> >> > How can I get only 1 instance???
>
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Seb.
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Google App Engine" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Re: Important news about instance based billing

[Philip]

As an appendix: There was a benchmark performed with that
configuration.

ab -n 1 -c 10 http://hello-world-app.appspot.com/

All the traffic went to a single instance. The instance was serving up
to 51qps.

On Sep 2, 7:00 pm, Philip  wrote:
> I've seen the screenshot in your other post and it looks like you have
> a low traffic app. I think there is a major difference between the
> needs of those who have an app like you and those who have an app with
> more traffic. I think what you would need is a "Max Instances" knob;
> on the other hand that's something larger users don't really need.
>
> I've read on the groups that there is a workaround to force GAE to a
> low number of instances: Set "Min Pending Latency" to a very high
> value like 15 seconds and "Max Idle Instances" to a very low value
> like 1. Maybe that will prevent GAE to launch additional instances for
> your app.
>
> On Sep 2, 6:50 pm, Bay  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Well I can see exactly how it works and I dont need the extra instances. My
> > app serves 0.200 QPS. I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm just making 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.

[google-appengine] Re: Important news about instance based billing

[Philip]

I've seen the screenshot in your other post and it looks like you have
a low traffic app. I think there is a major difference between the
needs of those who have an app like you and those who have an app with
more traffic. I think what you would need is a "Max Instances" knob;
on the other hand that's something larger users don't really need.

I've read on the groups that there is a workaround to force GAE to a
low number of instances: Set "Min Pending Latency" to a very high
value like 15 seconds and "Max Idle Instances" to a very low value
like 1. Maybe that will prevent GAE to launch additional instances for
your app.

On Sep 2, 6:50 pm, Bay  wrote:
> Well I can see exactly how it works and I dont need the extra instances. My
> app serves 0.200 QPS. I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm just making 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.

[google-appengine] Re: Important news about instance based billing

[Philip]

@Bay
If you haven't set "Max Idle Instances" to a low number you most
likely have to face a large increase and have to pay for a scheduler
that doesn't work perfectly. That is IMHO very shady move from Google.
I've set that knob to "2" and expect a huge reduction on my instance
hours bill. First of all the scheduler works way more efficient and if
I use the active instances + 2 for my calculation I will spend a sum
that is acceptable. Lets see how it works out before we jump into
conclusions.

On Sep 2, 6:27 pm, GAEfan  wrote:
> Also, all Python users have to note that the estimated charges shown
> under Billing History are at the 50% discounted price, which only
> lasts until November.  Take the top number (the instance hours), and
> double it to get the accurate charge.  Plus, add the $9.

-- 
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] Important news about instance based billing

[Philip]

Hi,

there were many different statements about the instance based billing
which were not clear to everyone. We've asked proppy in the IRC
channel to get us some clarification about the rules that apply to
instance based billing. We formulated some assertions and he forwarded
them to the product managers. I think you are all interested in them:

- In the dashboard instance chart "Active Instances" represent the
instances currently active serving traffic for this application
- In the dashboard instance chart "Total Instances" represent all
instances currently started for this application
- The visual difference between the 2 represent "Idle Instances", i.e:
the settings developers can control using Performance settings
- Developers will be billed for ("Active Instances" + Max "Idle
Instances") and not "Total Instances"

All those assertions are "true". Especially the last one should cut
the costs for most of the app engine users.

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

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

[Philip]

I'm sorry I don't find the original source anymore (it was somewhere
in the BIG faq thread) but I've asked for confirmation in the IRC
channel. With the new pricing there will be a 128mb memory limit for
frontend instances.

On Sep 2, 11:16 am, de Witte  wrote:
> The app itself doesn't need much memory. The memory footprint is high
> because of the many active threads to handle the requests.
>
> Less memory > means lesser threads > means lesser requests to be handled
> asynchronously by a single instance.
>
> So hopefully they won't reduce it, where did you read 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.

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

[Philip]

@de Witte
Do you know there will be also a tighter memory limit you most likely
exceed?

On Sep 2, 10:48 am, de Witte  wrote:
> 

-- 
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: Azure is changing its prices too

[Philip]

You can also use PHP on it.

Another big plus is that you don't sign a contract with an US company
if you live in Europe. I signed a contract with the local Microsoft
office and as a result I don't have to pay any tax for using Azure.
For GAE I've to pay tax to the US government.

On Sep 2, 9:48 am, "Brandon Wirtz"  wrote:
> Azure isn't .Net only.  I run Java on it.
>
> From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pascal Voitot Dev
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 12:44 AM
> To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Azure is changing its prices too
>
> the main problem is .NET, isn't it? :D
> I can't consider a proprietary dev platform to be the right solution even if
> I know it's good on many aspects and brought many interesting ideas!
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Philip  wrote:
>
> MSFT has an interesting approach that is IMHO an opposite to
> exploiting their market power. They deliver their technology to
> partners like eBay, Dell and HP so they can offer the same cloud
> service (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/appliance/) in theory
> you could easily switch from one to another without redesigning your
> app. There are also .NET ports for linux that are AFAIK even supported
> with code by MSFT.
>
> Also MSFT had to pay an insane fine for bundling internet explorer
> with windows. I doubt they risk another record fine by raising prices
> for their technology at a intolerable rate (>100%). eBay, Dell and HP
> are companies you don't fu** with.
>
> On Sep 2, 9:12 am, Anders  wrote:
>
> > 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 post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:google-appengine%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

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

[google-appengine] Re: Azure is changing its prices too

[Philip]

MSFT has an interesting approach that is IMHO an opposite to
exploiting their market power. They deliver their technology to
partners like eBay, Dell and HP so they can offer the same cloud
service (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/appliance/) in theory
you could easily switch from one to another without redesigning your
app. There are also .NET ports for linux that are AFAIK even supported
with code by MSFT.

Also MSFT had to pay an insane fine for bundling internet explorer
with windows. I doubt they risk another record fine by raising prices
for their technology at a intolerable rate (>100%). eBay, Dell and HP
are companies you don't fu** with.

On Sep 2, 9:12 am, Anders  wrote:
> 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 post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, 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] Azure is changing its prices too

[Philip]

Since I am also a Azure user I just got an email with the shocking
news: Azure will reduce prices for their smallest instance by 20%
starting on the 1st of October. ($0.04/hour for 1GHz & 768MB Memory)

Must be a bad position for MSFT. No vendor lock in and strong
competition.

-- 
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] A little bit more transparency

[Philip]

I would like to get some statistics about the average price increase
for python and java users to see if a multi threaded environment
really saves the day.

And please don't use dirty tricks for computing these statistics, here
is a formula that is correct:
((new_monthly_overall_gae_revenue - old_monthly_overall_gae_revenue) /
old_monthly_overall_gae_revenue)*100%

If you just compute an average of the increase across all apps the
numbers will be wrong because of the many free apps, also ridiculous
increases from 1$ to 3$ are weighed to strong.

I think if this price increase is fair you don't mind to announce the
average increase publicly.

-- 
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: Reaching the 72 CPU-minutes/minute limit

[Philip]

Hi Robert,

there is a undocumented feature called edge caching. If your handler
returns the Cache-Control header a local google datacenter will create
a copy of the output and serve it to clients directly. If a page is
edge cached you don't consume any cpu quota and only have to pay for
traffic. Maybe you can make use of that feature for your ticker, I
don't think that the usability would be harmed if you let google cache
the ticker for 10-20 seconds.

Regards
Philip

On Aug 26, 10:07 am, hovu96  wrote:
> I post this to the groups because the Google App Engine Support is neither
> answering my questions I posted to the request form
> (http://code.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=AppEngineC...)
> nor increasing the "CPU-minutes/minute" limit.
>
> A few weeks ago (during the last Apple keynote) we redirected all users from
> our german news website (www.mactechnews.de) to the app engine site
> (mtn-live.de/ticker/). We expected about 1000 request per second but in the
> first 5 minutes we received 1500 request per second. Before this event we
> increased the billing dollars but we weren't aware of the "72
> CPU-minutes/minute" limit. It is a very simple website that just fetches
> some entries from the db and renders them to the html. All other resources
> cached "public".
>
> Here are some screenshots that shows the situation:
>
> CPU Seconds / Second:
>
> <http://my-upload.appspot.com/serve/cpusecspersec.png?key=AMIfv96C4JpG...>
>
> CPU Milliseconds / Second:
>
> <http://my-upload.appspot.com/serve/millisecspersec.png?key=AMIfv96h8j...>
>
> Errors / Second:
>
> <http://my-upload.appspot.com/serve/errorspersec.png?key=AMIfv95IspnDt...>
>
> Instances:
>
> <http://my-upload.appspot.com/serve/instances.png?key=AMIfv95j7esCZrUN...>
>
> Requests / 
> Second:http://my-upload.appspot.com/serve/requestspersec.png?key=AMIfv97QiWw...
>
> We think the problem is shown in "cpusecspersec.png": The number of CPU
> seconds per second is larger then 72 (it is about 100).
>
> After so many 500 errors we decided to redirect to our old ticker server
> (which is hosted on windows 2008). Some requests contain this dashboard logs
> message:
> Request was aborted after waiting too long to attempt to service your
> request. This may happen sporadically when the App Engine serving
> cluster is under unexpectedly high or uneven load. If you see this
> message frequently, please contact the App Engine team.
>
> But we really want to use App Engine for that and are planning to implement
> more feature like chatting on that page or some other community features...
> but this isn't possible at all if even the simplistic basic page can't be
> handled properly.
>
> So our questions are:
>
> 1) Could you please increase the per minute quota ("CPU-minutes/minute") for
> the app id "sy-mtn" ? (The think the next Apple keynote will take place in
> September so it would be great to increase the limit as soon as possible)
> 2) Do you see any other (per minute) quota that we could reach?
>
> Thanks,
> Robert

-- 
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: GAE request latency is higher than expected.

[Philip]

Every request will be routed to the USA. The ping has no meaning at
all because you only hit a european datacenter which acts as a proxy
for the GAE datacenter in the USA.

On Aug 19, 9:11 pm, Mikael Grev  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> First, I'm not a HTTP guy, as you might understand.
>
> I thought I'd use GAE as a simple but scalable key/value pair
> database. So I just did a quick latency check since latency is key for
> performance in my scenario.
>
> I was very surprised that the latency is in average around 280ms for
> the simplest kind of request. Basically it's two lines of code that
> just returns the IP of the requesting host, so there's absolutely
> nothing that takes CPU time.
>
> The ping is constantly around 35ms so it's not a problem with lag in
> the network. I have a 100Mb/s line that's extremely fast on my side
> (Sweden) and it's always very fast to make requests to other hosts in
> US west cost.
>
> I have performance set to 10ms and 1 instance so that shouldn't be a
> problem either. I have also tried to make several requests in a row to
> warm it up, but the lag only gets slightly better, from 400ms to start
> with down to the 280ms I was referring to.
>
> Is this normal for HTTP requests or is GAE slow?
>
> I guess to make it faster I need a dedicated server and communicate
> through TCP directly?
>
> Cheers,
> Mikael

-- 
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: Sudden 1000 requests

[Philip]

Are you sure you configured your custom domain correctly? You are
talking about redirects and used a blank domain which is impossible
with app engine. Also you never received a single 200 response, maybe
you don't access app engine at all and just get a 301 redirect to the
appspot domain.

On Aug 16, 12:29 pm, kawasaki  wrote:
> I tried edge caching feature, but it doesn't work as I expected.
>
> I register Google Apps and set custom domain (likehttp://mydomain.jp),
> then set Application Settings > Domain Setup maybe correctly.
> I confirmed to accesshttp://mydomain.jp/test/will be redirected 
> tohttp://example.com/, throughhttp://example.appspot.com/test/.
> (These URLs are same as my first post to this discussion, please see
> class Foo.)
>
> I executed the following command:
> wget -S -q -O /dev/nullhttp://mydomain.jp/test/
>  result 
>   HTTP/1.0 302 Found
>   Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
>   Cache-Control: max-age=3603
>   Location:http://example.com/
>   Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:08:43 GMT
>   Server: Google Frontend
>   Content-Length: 0
>   Connection: Keep-Alive
>   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>   Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:08:43 GMT
>   Server: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu)
>   Last-Modified: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:50:27 GMT
>   ETag: "xx-xx-x"
>   Accept-Ranges: bytes
>   Content-Length: 100
>   Vary: Accept-Encoding
>   Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100
>   Connection: Keep-Alive
>   Content-Type: text/html
> 
>
> And this:
> ab -n 1000 -c 1000http://mydomain.jp/test/
>
>  result 
> ...
> Concurrency Level:      1000
> Time taken for tests:   2.154 seconds
> Complete requests:      1000
> Failed requests:        0
> Write errors:           0
> Non-2xx responses:      1000
> Total transferred:      247000 bytes
> HTML transferred:       0 bytes
> Requests per second:    464.28 [#/sec] (mean)
> Time per request:       2153.850 [ms] (mean)
> Time per request:       2.154 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent
> requests)
> Transfer rate:          111.99 [Kbytes/sec] received
> ...
> 
>
> QPS becomes a little bit faster.
> But I think this is not the performance I want.
>
> If I have a mistake or anyone give me a suggestion,
> please tell what should I do.
> (If no help will be posted, I will use CloudFront sadly...)
>
> Best regards,
> kawasaki

-- 
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: Sudden 1000 requests

[Philip]

Handling 1k QPS *immediately* is quite impossible under the current
pricing scheme. Your use case sounds like you will be serving content
that is static if thats the case you can use the undocumented edge
caching feature: Use the Cache-Control header and requests will be
cached by local Google Datacenters. I am sure that they can handle way
more than 1k QPS immediately. AFAIK this feature only works in
combination with a custom domain.

On Aug 11, 9:39 am, kawasaki  wrote:
> Yes, I tried go from 0 QPS to 1000 QPS Immediately.
> (Please imagine an event site like "80% price off sale starts 18:00
> today!! Get coupon fromhttp://example.appspot.com/xxx/";, and the URL
> has not told to anyone.)
>
> If I start slow like 10 or 20 QPS, I can see GAE handles over 600 QPS
> (and I know more QPS is handled, "if I start slowly").
> I'm sure I don't hit any limits.
>
> I just want to handle 1000 QPS immediately.
>
> I hope anyone tell me how can I handle sudden 1000 QPS,
> or tell me GAE is suitable or not suitable for the above usage.
>
> Best regards,
> kawasaki

-- 
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: System time off by over 5 minutes on gae server

[Philip]

Google officially stated multiple times that we cannot expect the time
on the servers to be exact. So I guess that's something you have to
live with.

On Jul 29, 6:23 am, Frank  wrote:
> if i do a datetime.datetime.now() the time is over 5 minutes off from
> the real gmt time.
> any hope google can run and monitor an ntp service?
>
> thank you

-- 
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: Blacklist page not showing top visitors IPs on HR apps

[Philip]

You should star this issue: 
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5237

On Jul 28, 9:21 am, Prashant  wrote:
> I tried uploading dos.xml with only my own IP address in it. Requests are
> getting blocked but Blacklist page is not showing any record of rejected
> visitors.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Prashant  wrote:
> > Everyday an "Evolution/2.32.2" bot is making hundreds of hits on my app's
> > home page. How do I block it ?
>
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Prashant  wrote:
>
> >> Hi,
>
> >> I have a few apps on and MS and a few apps on HR. MS app are showing "*Top
> >> 25 visitors" *on Blacklist page while HR apps are not showing any such
> >> list. Do I need to configure something to see the the "*Top 25 visitors*"
> >> * *for HR apps ?
>
> >> Thanks in advance :)
>
> >> --
> >> Prashant

-- 
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: File downloading to GAE Servers

[Philip]

Your GAE app is hosted on a read-only filesystem. You have to store
that data in blobstore or datastore.

Best Regards
Philip

On Jul 20, 9:04 am, Webhoundx  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to download a file hosted on another server to GAE
> server?
> For example if you 
> visit,http://www.cse.lk/listedcompanies/overview.htm?d-16544-e=1&6578706f72...
>
> You will be prompted to save a csv file on the local machine. I would
> like to make a copy of this file everyday at a certain time on the GAE
> server.
> I'm a total newbie and really appreciate some directions.
>
> Thanks in advance
> webhoundx

-- 
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 CDN bug?

[Philip]

Use a cache buster e.g. include the version number to the url of the
file: http://www.yoursite.com/logo.png?version=398

Best Regards
Philip

On Jul 17, 12:46 am, Tapir  wrote:
> Not for the first time, my static files are not updated when I made a
> new deploy, even if I changed the version number.
>
> Is there a delay for the CDN to upload the static files? But the delay
> is so long, it is for hours.
> The problem is very fatal. Without the correct css and js files, my
> website doesn't work.

-- 
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: Model.get_or_insert() behavior on high-replication datastore

[Philip]

The behaviour is the same on MS and HR. Take a look at the code sample
on this page: 
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/modelclass.html#Model_get_or_insert
They don't use queries (which are eventual consistent without the use
of entity groups on HR); instead they use a get() operation which is
*always* consistent.

Best Regards
Philip

On Jul 16, 10:22 am, Pol  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The documentation for Model.get_or_insert() indicates this is an
> atomic operation but the documentation for the high-replication
> datastore says that it is eventually consistent unless you use entity
> groups.
>
> So it is correct that Model.get_or_insert() is not atomic on high-
> replication datastore if the entity key has no parent?
>
> - Pol

-- 
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: Deleting record does not set properties that reference to it to null.

[Philip]

There are no real "references" on app engine. A reference property is
nothing but a key to another datastore item.

Best Regards
Philip

On Jul 15, 6:49 pm, Zippoxer  wrote:
> p.action.delete()
> p.action = None
> p.put()
>
> Do I have to keep the last two lines...

-- 
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: What's the difference between static and cached requests in the dashboard?

[Philip]

Request handlers will be cached if you use the Cache-Control header. I
would suggest the line refers to those requests + static requests.

On Jun 30, 12:35 am, Waleed Abdulla  wrote:
> I noticed a big increase in requests today, and it looks like it's due to a
> sharp increase in "cached requests" (see image). I know that dynamic
> requests refer to those that reach a request handler, and static are those
> that are delivered through the CDN. Does anyone know what "cached requests"
> are? I couldn't find any documentation about it. Are they simply static
> requests that return 304 (not modified)?
>
>  Screen shot 2011-06-29 at 2.16.37 PM.png
> 52KViewDownload

-- 
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: R: Re: App Engine DoS protection ("unusual traffic" error) and reverse proxies

[Philip]

Brandon, I doubt you are an expert regarding US software export laws.
App Engine TOS say: "Your use of the Service must comply with all
applicable laws, regulations and ordinances, including any laws
regarding the export of data or software."

I am not a expert either but I think if Francois "exports" his service
to the cloudflare servers he does not violate any export laws. What
happens at the cloudflare servers is something that has no effect to
App Engine TOS.

On Jun 23, 10:23 pm, "Brandon Wirtz"  wrote:
> I'm not a Google employee, but putting a service in place to bypass
> Geographic access restrictions seems like a violation of TOS.
>
> From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Francois MASUREL
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:10 PM
> To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [google-appengine] R: Re: App Engine DoS protection ("unusual
> traffic" error) and reverse proxies
>
> Brandon,
>
> Could you precise in what way I am violating the GAE TOS by using CloudFlare
> ?
>
> I really don't want to be in some kind of illegal situation.
>
> Thanx for your help.
>
> Francois
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 22:05, Brandon Wirtz  wrote:
>
> Oh, so you are using it to violate the GAE TOS.  Even more reason to fix it.
>
> From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Francois MASUREL
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:47 PM
> To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [google-appengine] R: Re: App Engine DoS protection ("unusual
> traffic" error) and reverse proxies
>
> In fact, CloudFlare was the only "simple" solution I found to make my site
> reachable from the P.R.C.
>
> But I'm open to any other solution that doesn't cost an arm.
>
> Francois
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 21:03, Brandon Wirtz  wrote:
>
> The problem only exists for ONE company.   I use Akamai DSA with out issue
> with AppEngine, and I have several setups using a Squid in front.   Their
> problem not Goog's.  The problem is that CloudFlare "Double Bags" and messes
> with headers. And then falls out of compliance.
>
> Sorry if I'm cold hearted, but -1 for "help my free app run even more free
> with a free RCP" doesn't seem like a priority.
>
> From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Martino A. Sabia
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:16 AM
> To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> Cc: Matthew Blain
> Subject: [google-appengine] R: Re: App Engine DoS protection ("unusual
> traffic" error) and reverse proxies
>
> Great!
>
> I've starred your issue on the Appengine issue-tracker, let's hope to have
> some response ;).
>
> I'll put a link here of our previous discussion just for the records:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-appengine/4D1IGqCh4LA
>
> Thank you,
>
> Martino.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To view this discussion on the web 
> visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/21jXmXNcUycJ.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>  .
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>  .
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-a

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

[Philip]

Hi Greg,

suppose there will be an issue with the python runtime resulting in
very high latencies for a period of time, do we have to pay for the
extra instances that are needed?

The instances chart on the dashboard does also contain "active
instances", can we orientate at that number (+-10%) for the new
scheduling algorithm?

Thanks for any answer.

On May 11, 7:46 pm, "Gregory D'alesandre"  wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Vinuth Madinur 
> wrote:
>
> > Important concerns raised on the blog comment:
>
> > 
>
> > "Due to customer feedback and to better service memory intensive
> > applications, we will be eliminating CPU hours."
>
> > I can't imagine anyone actually requested this. That's corporate bs for "we
> > are making this unpopular change but going to pretend customers requested
> > it".
>
> Hi Vinuth, I can imagine how it sounds like corporate bs, but in reality
> with the current CPU-only based model, we have a number of limitations that
> many potential customers were unhappy about.  High latency apps essentially
> hold on to lots of memory without any CPU usage, this means that we can't
> scale it because it would just continue to gobble up more memory unbounded.
>  Under the new model any app can scale, but will be paying for the memory as
> well as the cpu used, this opens App Engine up to a number of
> developers/applications that weren't able to use it before and wanted to.
>
> > "Instead, our serving infrastructure will charge for the number of
> > Instances running"
>
> > As companies age, they start looking for ways to make free money without
> > actual work. (Think of the big banks.) Sad to see signs Google is going that
> > way. If this move results in charging even for instances sitting idly (while
> > we don't even have direct control over the # of instances!) that would be a
> > pretty big change from "no evil". My app has light load and is set to
> > multithreaded yet AE keeps spawning new instances for no reason. I refuse to
> > pay for those.
>
> This is why we are working on our scheduler, even idle instances cost
> resources, not CPU but essentially the opportunity cost of other
> applications that could run but can't because the idle instance is taking up
> space.  Our goal is to only run the number of instances you need for your
> traffic.
>
> I hope that helps!
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "These instances will be similar to the instances you can see in the Admin
> > Console today with the exception that we will be improving our scheduler to
> > ensure each instance has an appropriate level of utilization."
>
> > Make the scheduler calculate costs based on CPU usage and I might stay. If
> > you try to charge me for idle CPU cycles (in whichever instance) I can't see
> > any reason not to just rent a VM instead. That's the point when Google loses
> > any advantage over VMs.
>
> > 
>
> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:37 PM, stevep  wrote:
>
> >> My $0.02 cents (old model, $0.08 new Google estimate, $1.00 other user
> >> estimates).
>
> >> Having done a lot of work in finance for a large tech company, my main
> >> disappointment with the new pricing is the me-too approach from
> >> Google. Great engineering, but very lax with respect to innovation for
> >> the whole product. In this case pricing.
>
> >> GAE had promised more of an activity-based model. Great I thought, an
> >> application of Activity Based Costing to a business. ABC is truly a
> >> gift for businesses WTR good decision making. However, the discipline
> >> needed to apply it often goes lacking. The main area where the lack of
> >> discipline applies is upper management decision making. ABC is a
> >> disciplined approach to running your business. It lays bare good
> >> operations, and forces poor management decisions into the open --
> >> which is why upper managers hate it. Anyway, enough theory.
>
> >> Here's the example the applies to GAE. The $0.01 charge per 10,000
> >> files. For nearly the entire time I've been in this forum, I've heard
> >> Ikai and others describe the efficiency and sophistication of GAE
> >> content delivery network. "Use static files because of our great
> >> efficiency" or something like that. Unless I'm mistaken, there is
> >> nothing that would suggest using ABC that the number of files drives
> >> costs at $0.01 per 10K.
>
> >> Another take on this is a question someone asked long ago in the
> >> forums about why static files bandwidth charges under High Replication
> >> got the higher bandwidth charge when the system used to deliver the
> >> bandwidth is THE SAME system used for Master/Slave. Never answered of
> >> course.
>
> >> The penny per 10K files is simply Google lazily looking at AWS and
> >> saying, "Hey, this is how we can really juice the profit, and compare
> >> well with AWS." The problem with these types of decisions that the
> >> pricing system becomes arbitrary, and guided ultimately by board-room
> >> decisions rather than operating discipline.
>
> >> I'm happ

[google-appengine] Re: GAE Hauling the Freight

[Philip]

That's a incredible spike, do you mind sharing the reason for this
spike? TV coverage, a large advertising campaign or simply a software
error?

On Apr 29, 9:44 am, "Brandon Wirtz"  wrote:
> 900 Megabytes per second Burst for about 10 minutes, with 375 MBps for about
> 9 hours.  That's 7.2Gigabits burst.  To do that on a traditional hosting
> provider would be 8 Dedicated machines serving Gigabit each, and a 10 gig
> load balancer.  Would have been about $15k a month with a traditional
> hosting provider for this capacity.  Client will spend about $1500 this
> month instead, after our markup of the service.
>
> This is partly me bragging, but more it was a great demonstration of the
> elasticity of the product.  Look at the traffic before and after the spike.
> GAE really shines on sites where you only need 100x the capacity 10 minutes
> a week. And 50x for 6 hours a week.
>
>  image001.png
> 45KViewDownload

-- 
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: File Size Issue - Can I upload large files?

[Philip]

You should use blobstore to host such large files:
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/blobstore/overview.html

On Apr 22, 11:23 am, rainmaker  wrote:
> Hi... i need to host large files.. like 300 mb.
>
> I tried, but it errored out. Are files of this size even allowed in GAE?
>
> Appreciate any help!
>
> Thanks!

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

[google-appengine] Re: Massive EC2 outage

[Philip]

At least Amazon has announced that Skynet has nothing to do with this
outage: 
https://forums.aws.amazon.com/message.jspa?messageID=238872#jive-message-238934

What surprises me is that this outage is not covered by any SLA
according to Amazon. I don't think its smart to refuse compensations
especially since Amazon is most likely insured for such a outage.

On Apr 21, 7:02 pm, Jeff Schnitzer  wrote:
> I'm not suggesting schadenfreude here, but for all those folks
> doubting the viability of appengine for reliability reasons:
>
> http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/04/21/amazon-ec2-goes-down-taking-with-...
>
> Amazon's North Virginia datacenter tripped and fell over in the early
> AM this morning, and several major sites (Foursquare and Quora) are
> still down more than *eight hours* later.  Ouch.
>
> You can read the gory details here:  http://status.aws.amazon.com/
>
> Jeff

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

[google-appengine] Re: App Engine DataStore - Supporting Multiple Apps Issue

[Philip]

Did you take a look at namespaces? 
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/multitenancy/overview.html

On Apr 19, 2:10 pm, Dean Chalk  wrote:
> Hi
>
> We are about to undertake a re-write of a large and successfull
> bespoke ecommerce system currently running in a standard hosted
> enviromment (dedicated servers) written in Microsoft ASP.NET (3 years
> ago).
>
> We want the new version to run in the cloud, and utilise a 'NoSql'
> type solution for data storage. We are currently considering using
> either Google App Engine or Windows Azure.
>
> We've played with both platforms, and would prefer to build a python-
> based app on top of Google App Engine, as the developement and
> deployment overhead seems more favourable for a fast-evolving
> application (like we have).
>
> The solution in its entirety consists of an 'Administrative' web
> application for order processing, and 1 or more independant 'selling'
> websites where visitors can place orders and pay for them. Our current
> site has 3 'selling' sites but this will grow to at least 9.
>
> Currently all websites are deploted on the same dedicated servers, and
> share data model code and use the same connection credentials to a
> central SQL server database.
>
> Windows Azure Table Storage will meet our data requirements as any
> number of applications can be configured to securely access the same
> data store. However, we have just discivered thet the data store for
> Google App Engine doesnt support this. We've seen work-arounds with
> 'versions' but with 10 or more applications being deployed as
> different versions of the same application seems very fragile, and
> likely to cause many problems.
>
> Does Google App Engine have a secure mechanism for sharing data
> betwewen applicaitons (other than having to build a whole REST service
> infrastructire in Python)
>
> Inability to support our needs will be a show-stopper for us with
> respect to using Google App Engine, which will be a shame as in every
> other way we are very impressed.
>
> Dean

-- 
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: How to block Google App Engine?

[Philip]

Google search has nothing to do with app engine. According to their
privacy policy they don't have a right to use our app engine data at
all.

On Apr 1, 2:48 am, Álvaro Degives-Más  wrote:
> Hi Nick - and by extension, Barry as well (unfortunately I appear to have
> sent my reply directly to him - my apologies as I didn't CC myself so I
> can't share what exactly I wrote!)
>
> First of all, rest assured that my concerns are not necessarily with Google
> App Engine, but rather the species of search engine related API development
> frameworks that rely on that particular address space, perhaps more commonly
> referred to as cloud leveraged app platforms.
>
> The problem is that search engines - such as Google's - are routinely
> polluted; that is not attributable to negligence but it's the same sad
> reality nonetheless. Such polluted entries (e.g. certain queries) are used
> as a vector tampering with other, external properties. No amount of
> "sanitization" can counter the fundamental lack of a "permissible URL
> tokenizing" framework, i.e. something which communicates in a uniform manner
> to all interested parties (i.e. the Google family) what a "permissible" URL
> looks like.
>
> Sadly, the robots.txt syntax and the meta tag nofollow,noindex both lack
> this "syntax whitelisting" feature; they are not prescriptive ("only crawl
> and index the URLs that look like this, and ignore the rest"). Of course,
> with many if not most standard on-site search queries, it is possible to
> script page headers that include nofollow,noindex metatags. But many other
> kinds of dynamic content aren't easily "wrapped" with such headers.
>
> And that is where abuse of poisoned search engine indexes come into play.
>
> Just as I can't hunt down every non-canonical URL in the Google index,
> flagging issues case-by-case is not only not effective (if only because my
> logs demonstrate that) but practically prohibitive as well (I assume you can
> imagine that I'm not interested in hunting down all search engine based
> botnet traffic and relating that to individual sources) so my alternative is
> to simply shut down access to search engines. I don't have the time or the
> resources to play whack a mole with the ever increasing scourge of botnets.
> Incidentally, a look at traffic evolution in my traffic logs and a cursory
> look at some well-known email spam statistics suggests that indeed there's a
> quantum shift afoot, shifting from email to (particularly) smaller web
> property targeting for invasive "advertising" methods by the miscreants out
> there.
>
> And that is exactly what I have chosen to do: the well-behaved search
> engines (Google, Bing, Yahoo) are informed via robots.txt that they are not
> welcome, and their indexes are cleared out; the ill-behaved ones are blocked
> and upon sight rigorously reported to blacklists.
>
> Until there is something available which gives website proprietors
> (especially the small to medium sized ones!) a trivial and effective means
> to control which content is accessible for storage and further processing in
> the cloud, the internet will continue to shrink.
>
> Indeed, with heavy heart. But I don't have the resources to keep my
> web-based property open to "play nice" with worthwhile endeavors such as
> Google App Engine, while a notorious minority of criminals (I openly prefer
> the "terrorist" moniker) runs amok with virtual impunity. And so, I set a
> tight regime for wrapper security scripts (e.g. ZB Block, which I find quite
> effective and flexible).
>
> Hopefully you now understand better; it's not that I mistrust Google, or
> Google App Engine in particular. I just can't afford to be available for
> well-intended fun and games while carrying the weight of incidental abuse at
> my own expense.

-- 
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] failure responding to XMPP messages

[Philip Tucker]

Issue #1, the crowdguru svn directory appears empty.

http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fjava%2Fdemos%2Fcrowdguru%2Fsrc%2Fcom%2Fgoogle%2Fappengine%2Fdemos%2Fcrowdguru

Issue #2, I've built a simplified version of XmppReceiverServlet from
the crowdguru example  (http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/
using_xmpp.html) but it doesn't work.

Here's my source code:

public class XmppReceiverServlet extends HttpServlet {
  private static final Logger LOG =
  Logger.getLogger(XmppServlet.class.getName());

  private static final XMPPService xmppService =
  XMPPServiceFactory.getXMPPService();

  public void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse
response)
  throws IOException {
Message message = xmppService.parseMessage(request);
replyToMessage(message, "ack [" + message.getBody() + "]");
  }

  private void replyToMessage(Message message, String body) {
JID jid = message.getFromJid();
LOG.info("jid " + jid + " is available? "
+ xmppService.getPresence(jid).isAvailable());
LOG.info("body = " + body);
xmppService.sendMessage(new MessageBuilder()
.withRecipientJids(jid)
.withMessageType(MessageType.NORMAL)
.withBody(body)
.build());
  }
}

The message is received just fine, isAvailable is always true, and
there are no exceptions. If I send from GMail or WIndows desktop
Google Talk, I get the ack response successfully. If I send from my
Android talk client or iGoogle, I get no response. I've invited my app
as a chat contact in all environments.

crowdg...@appspot.com works, though, so I'm sure I'm missing
something, but I can't see the full source.

Here are the formats of the JIDs. The 1st 2 work, the 2nd 2 don't.

f...@gmail.com/gmail.8F4CB7A5
f...@gmail.com/Talk.v104A6A18605
f...@gmail.com/android59c54037eadf
f...@gmail.com/iGoogle5D250A2D

- Philip

-- 
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] Good heavens: appengine selects primary/secondary composite index sorts on an alphabetic basis

[philip]

[solved]
The answer to this is that appengine concatenates the various properties 
into a single-field index (hence the one inequality filter only 
restriction).  It looks very much as if the primary sort is on the 
right-most field.  If no secondary sort order is requested then the 
remaining fields can be sorted in any way whatever.
It's a curious way to do it, though I do understand the desire to trade 
space efficiency and write-time performance for read speed.

-- 
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: Spam

[Philip]

I wonder how many viagra pills are sold by this obvious spam.

On Feb 26, 7:40 pm, barryhunter  wrote:
> To be deleted :)

-- 
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.