Hello
I wonder whether using a namespace rather than prefixes would save any
space in the memcache. Or is that just what memcache does internally
when using namespace?
Regards
J. Záruba
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To
may be a very small little bit, but it is good practice to do it
standard way.
On Jun 12, 12:13 pm, Jaroslav Záruba
wrote:
> Hello
>
> I wonder whether using a namespace rather than prefixes would save any
> space in the memcache. Or is that just what memcache does internally
> when using namespa
you don't have to link it via app.yaml, you can map urlmap via
django , just make sure that it points to the right page.
On Jun 12, 8:31 am, Luís Marques wrote:
> Hello,
>
> OK, it seems that the problem that is making this difficult is the
> following.
>
> If the mapreduce tries to import module
IMO standard way would be to use namespaces (and maybe more efficient), but
the thing is there is not much documentation about how namespaces work, and
(judging by the groups archives) it seems that in fact prefixing is the
approach people usually take...
...well, unless there has been an update th
On Jun 12, 8:40 am, gops wrote:
> you don't have to link it via app.yaml, you can map urlmap via
> django , just make sure that it points to the right page.
I used app.yaml because I needed to specify "login: admin". Is there
another way?
The mapreduce/main.py does its own initialization. How wo
Hi!
I am currently implementing the deferred library in my code, and I am
running into a very very strange problem. The function that I am
deferring gets passed an entity key. It does two tasks: 1) Gets the
entity, retrieves a reference property, alters it, and then puts it
back 2)Sends out an
Is it possible to apply url rewriting rules to static content?
Example mappings:
http://sub.myapp.com/* -> http://www.myapp.com/sub/*
http://www.myapp.com/**/* -> http://www.myapp.com/**/*.html
I can easily apply such mappings for dynamic content (using some kind
of middleware/filter). Is this po
Hi,
Until Google releases the version which they showcased in I/O where we won't
have to deal with exploding indexes, I guess our choices are very limited
and we would have to live with it.
I would like to go ahead and ask, what is acceptable number indexes people
have in general? I have an entit
The startup times for the webapp framework, as used in the Python
getting started, has a very small startup time compared to Django. For
webapp this is around 300ms for a cold start.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To post t
It was supposed to start at 1pm. I wonder if it's already in progress or not
started yet!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appeng...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group
Hey Waleed
The first half of the maintenance period was actually done without
going read-only. We have just enabled read-only now.
On Jun 12, 1:49 pm, Waleed Abdulla wrote:
> It was supposed to start at 1pm. I wonder if it's already in progress or not
> started yet!
--
You received this messag
Thanks for the info.
I updated my app to detect the read-only mode per Jason's presentation[1].
However, now that it's in read-only mode, my app is not detecting it. So the
preparations I coded are not working and things are failing badly rather
than gracefully :(
This is the code I'm using:
Hello - I'm looking for some advice on performance of memcache incr()
operations. I assume that these can become a bottleneck when a lot of
traffic hits and need to get sharded, the question is what is "a lot".
I'm using memcache incr() for counting specific event types and would
like to understa
Hmm, okay we're looking into what's going on.
On Jun 12, 2:23 pm, Waleed Abdulla wrote:
> Thanks for the info.
>
> I updated my app to detect the read-only mode per Jason's presentation[1].
> However, now that it's in read-only mode, my app is not detecting it. So the
> preparations I coded are n
Thank you. And for completeness sake, here is the full function I'm using,
just in case something else is wrong. Rather than calling the capabilities
APIs on every hit, I cache the value in a global variable and check every 30
seconds.
*from google.appengine.api import capabilities*
*
*
*# Store
On Jun 12, 5:12 pm, App Engine Team
wrote:
> Hey Waleed
>
> The first half of the maintenance period was actually done without
> going read-only. We have just enabled read-only now.
Do you know approximately when the maintenance period will end?
Amir
>
> On Jun 12, 1:49 pm, Waleed Abdulla wrot
Amir - We should be back in the next twenty minutes.
Waleed - I'm so sorry, I think the issue is on our side, but our hands
are tied at the moment with other things happening in the maintenance.
On Jun 12, 2:40 pm, Amir Michail wrote:
> On Jun 12, 5:12 pm, App Engine Team
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Wa
Hi Jan,
Because memcache is entirely in-memory, and quite straightforward, it's
extremely fast. A memcache server can typically handle thousands of QPS -
more than your app is likely to see - so you're quite safe not sharding
memcache calls.
-Nick Johnson
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Jan Z
The datastore should now be back. Please let me know if you're still
seeing issues.
On Jun 12, 2:44 pm, App Engine Team
wrote:
> Amir - We should be back in the next twenty minutes.
>
> Waleed - I'm so sorry, I think the issue is on our side, but our hands
> are tied at the moment with other thi
I have seen from several sources that you can do this import:
from google.appengine.api.capabilities import CapabilitySet
and then tell when the datastore is read-only like so:
if not CapabilitySet('datastore_v3',
capabilities=['write']).is_enabled():
... handle read-only ...
However this
Is anyone else experiencing this?
J
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appeng...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-appengine+unsubscr...@googleg
Thanks Nick - hoped this was the case, just haven't seen it confirmed!
Jan
On Jun 13, 10:15 am, "Nick Johnson (Google)"
wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> Because memcache is entirely in-memory, and quite straightforward, it's
> extremely fast. A memcache server can typically handle thousands of QPS -
> more
We are still seeing this across a significant percentage of outbound
requests, and have verified that there are no performance issues with
the other service (we're not seeing the requests coming through from
Google in fact). Problem started at 3:10 pm PST.
Was URLfetch service affected by the dat
In the Python Runtime, yes:
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/config/appconfig.html#Static_File_Handlers
see the section on "static file pattern handlers"
In the Java Runtime, no, at least for the moment. I put in a feature
request here: http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/d
On Jun 13, 10:55 am, Darien Caldwell
wrote:
> However this is the second time that maintenance has occured, and this
> method didn't work.
Seconded. The capabilities API may seem like a small thing, but it
makes outages more bearable. Without it our applications return 500
errors for an hour, whi
Congratulations to the Appengine team for fixing the latency issue -
right now it's looking amazing, with average 50ms gets. Our
applications feel like limber youths instead of doddering geriatrics,
and I'm sure our customers will notice on Monday. Thanks for all the
hard work that went into diagno
Indeed - DB seems much happier now.
I also second the thank you for a weekend outage window - made our
lives a lot easier too, especially for customers outside the US TZ's!
Jan
On Jun 13, 2:08 pm, Greg wrote:
> Congratulations to the Appengine team for fixing the latency issue -
> right now it'
Looking at the system status page shows a great improvement in
datastore performance. What's interesting is that at the same time,
there is a significant degradation in Python serving performance.
Don't know the full implications of this, but it is interesting.
In any case - it is *great* that yo
Hi,
On this page http://code.google.com/appengine/kb/general.html#stuck_indexes
, it says that I can ask help in the group, if my index has been in
building status for so long.
Thanks,
James
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
It is not an unneeded write.
You put a try-except around a db.put (a write) you want to do
normally. But when the CapabilityDisabledError exception is raised you
know the write failed because of Read-Only mode.
Just put your "... handle read-only ..." code at the place of "# fail
gracefully here"
30 matches
Mail list logo
