[google-appengine] Re: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Remember to implement a mutex system in the in-process caching mechanism or your instance will fail randomly when the new py2.7 version will be rolled out. -- 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/-/EiSwoa5pffIJ. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
in new pricing model exist something like memcache data transfer 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: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Hi Santiago, On Sep 8, 9:01 pm, Santiago Lema jacques.l...@gmail.com wrote: Since this app basically serves semi-static content (it's updated once a day) I used AppEngine's memcache to serve every request. [...] So I just added another level of caching before memcache: a simple python dict that stores the data in the instance itself. This instantly reduced the number of instances back to 1 (sometimes 2). This suddenly makes the new pricing acceptable. if 1) you know how long the content won't change, 2) the content is publicly accessible, and 3) you have billing enabled, you should also set the Cache-Control header. Then Google may put your content in its front-end Cache, and for cache hits on that cache, you would only be billed traffic and no CPU/instance time. As far as I know, there are no guarantees whether/when the front-end cache kicks in, so I would keep instance cache and Memcache. If you are on Python: seconds_valid = # Add whatever value is appropriate here self.response.headers['Cache-Control'] = public, max-age=%d % seconds_valid You see the front-end cache working if your log shows 204 No Content log entries with 0 CPU seconds in your log. Please let me know whether it worked for you. Take care, Tammo -- 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: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Thanks a lot! I'll definitely try this. On 9 sep, 03:40, Tammo Freese i...@flockofbirds.net wrote: HiSantiago, On Sep 8, 9:01 pm,SantiagoLemajacques.l...@gmail.com wrote: Since this app basically serves semi-static content (it's updated once a day) I used AppEngine's memcache to serve every request. [...] So I just added another level of caching before memcache: a simple python dict that stores the data in the instance itself. This instantly reduced the number of instances back to 1 (sometimes 2). This suddenly makes the new pricing acceptable. if 1) you know how long the content won't change, 2) the content is publicly accessible, and 3) you have billing enabled, you should also set the Cache-Control header. Then Google may put your content in its front-end Cache, and for cache hits on that cache, you would only be billed traffic and no CPU/instance time. As far as I know, there are no guarantees whether/when the front-end cache kicks in, so I would keep instance cache and Memcache. If you are on Python: seconds_valid = # Add whatever value is appropriate here self.response.headers['Cache-Control'] = public, max-age=%d % seconds_valid You see the front-end cache working if your log shows 204 No Content log entries with 0 CPU seconds in your log. Please let me know whether it worked for you. Take care, Tammo -- 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: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Tammo, I thought you might like to know I quoted you in my fresh blog post on this matter: http://www.smallte.ch/blog-read_fr_34003.html -- 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: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Ok, I have just tested it and it seems to work beautifully (at least for all the requests that didn't include a random value!). -- 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: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Good suggestion. At least until we have workable multithreadding I have become very reluctant to use RPCs unless absolutely necessary. It helps keep the instance number down. -- 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/-/4UBt0EEiOj4J. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Actually I thought using RPCs is a good way to achieve parallelism in python, before python 2.7 comes along. My app does a lot of URL fetches from external websites. This is very inefficient in terms of GAE instance uptime. If the external website takes 30 seconds to respond, my instance stays up for 30 seconds, and can't service any requests. So my solution has been to use asynchronous URL fetch using create_rpc. If I call 10 URL fetches asynchronously, and each takes 30 seconds to return, then my 30 second GAE instance uptime is now amortized over 10 URL fetches instead of a single one. Does my logic sound wrong? I have yet to implement this, but I imagine this will lower my costs by allowing me to set a really low value for MaxNumInstances (like 1 or 2), and by lowering my instance hours, without sacrificing request latency. On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Brandon Thomson gra...@gmail.com wrote: Good suggestion. At least until we have workable multithreadding I have become very reluctant to use RPCs unless absolutely necessary. It helps keep the instance number down. -- 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/-/4UBt0EEiOj4J. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google App Engine group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
Re: [google-appengine] Re: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Rishi: This sounds like an excellent idea. Even with concurrent requests in python 2.7, using the asynchronous apis like this will make you application perform much better. On 9 September 2011 06:18, Rishi Arora rishi.ar...@ship-rack.com wrote: Actually I thought using RPCs is a good way to achieve parallelism in python, before python 2.7 comes along. My app does a lot of URL fetches from external websites. This is very inefficient in terms of GAE instance uptime. If the external website takes 30 seconds to respond, my instance stays up for 30 seconds, and can't service any requests. So my solution has been to use asynchronous URL fetch using create_rpc. If I call 10 URL fetches asynchronously, and each takes 30 seconds to return, then my 30 second GAE instance uptime is now amortized over 10 URL fetches instead of a single one. Does my logic sound wrong? I have yet to implement this, but I imagine this will lower my costs by allowing me to set a really low value for MaxNumInstances (like 1 or 2), and by lowering my instance hours, without sacrificing request latency. On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Brandon Thomson gra...@gmail.com wrote: Good suggestion. At least until we have workable multithreadding I have become very reluctant to use RPCs unless absolutely necessary. It helps keep the instance number down. -- 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/-/4UBt0EEiOj4J. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, 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: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Won't you have problems with instances that live around the time you update content? When you send the update request, that instance will update it's dict (and memcache and the datastore). If you have another instance alive at that time, it won't know about the update and will continue serving the old one. If your update happens at a predictable time you could make the cache logic reload from the datastore, but for unpredictable updates this technique will break if your app scales above one instance. -- 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: Using memcache might be free, but it's costing you money with instance pricing! Use instance caches if possible.
Would be nice to have a Memcache.OnEntryUpdatedCallback... -- 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/-/wvF_Q3Q8p8MJ. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
