On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Richard steven...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I do this reliably in a 10 second window ? I have had using a PULL
queue suggested, but I don't want to do all the work of converting the app
over if it will be just as unreliable (I remember posts about tasksqueue's
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
And then when Google Spam team bot shows up you would be delisted... That
would Rock...
It's highly improbable that anyone in an official capacity at Google
will ever view your page with the exact User-Agent:
AppEngine-Google;
Is there a practical limitation on the throughput of a pull queue? I
don't see any documented limit.
If I had thousands of producers and consumers working simultaneously
on a single pull queue, would it hold up? Let's hypothetically say a
thousand adds and a thousand removes per second. One
Every fetch request from GAE includes the appid as a header... you
obviously see it yourself, which is how you know the appid of the
crawler. This is how Google enables you to block applications; just
block all requests with that particular header.
Jeff
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:35 AM, jswap
to Google's PageSpeed Insights tool
too.
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:27:27 PM UTC-4, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
Every fetch request from GAE includes the appid as a header... you
obviously see it yourself, which is how you know the appid of the
crawler. This is how Google enables you to block
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:42 PM, David Hardwick
david.hardw...@bettercloud.com wrote:
Amazing, Andrei. If you can get those startup times going with GWT and the
complexities you mentioned in your app, then clearly stripping out DI and
using low-level API (and likely jar'ing everything) is a
Brandon. This pit is just getting deeper and deeper. When are you
going to give up?
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
Really?
You don't think that doing lazy class loads would speed up your startup?
The JVM lazy loads classes automatically. This is just how
I feel like I need to keep following up just in case a Java newbie
takes this advice seriously.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
Also None of your references are weak? Do you just hate garbage collectors?
That won't help much with startup, but again it would
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
I like that you use +'s to concat strings, it shows a real lack of
experience doing optimizations since that is the very first thing on every
list.
System.out.println(new Date() + : + new
Random().nextInt());
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
I can't get over how much memory this thing uses before it does something.
Like just warming up I'm at 248M of memory.
I'd start looking at what you've changed, or some defect in your test
environment.
https://img.skitch.com/20120724-xdwyfjbfe7pxeyh2aa98938yxd.jpg
No memory spikes.
Jeff
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
Ok so it works its way down to the same levels you are seeing it takes 3-5
minutes.
That's a first for me as well.
In your production
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
+ doesn’t matter if you do it once, but at one point this code is doing up
to 15k +’s in a loop, and + doesn’t do efficient recycling of
temporary/intermediary objects.
Did you even read the bytecode output I posted?
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
And you get a new string builder each loop. If you use string builder and
recycle it you don't have to re-create the object. Which doesn't create so
much garbage.
You have the answer and you don't understand it.
Just give it
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:10 AM, pdknsk pdk...@googlemail.com wrote:
I haven't been able to figure out what the reason is. It seems to have
improved slightly to about 3/s but it still had 20 seconds delays
occasionally for no apparent reason. I've since moved mail sending to
a named version
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 4:26 AM, saintthor saintt...@gmail.com wrote:
if not, i have to consider mongodb.
What's wrong with MongoDB?
From a high-level features-of-the-api perspective, MongoDB is
reasonably similar to the datastore. If I ever had to move an app,
it's probably where I would go.
I can't believe I'm keeping this thread going, but...
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
And your
absurd proposal that all 326 of my url endpoints should be separate
applications... Just. Wow.
If you had actually read what I posted I said that you should
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Per per.fragem...@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt that Google will commit to any official statement. So here's my 2
cents, from a low-usage, rather complex B2B application. Frameworks are
okay, to a certain degree, but be prepared to rework if you're successful
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
But you keep slamming my CDN because you like those
other CDN guys but it is just an enabling technology for everything else I
do.
I really am not slamming your product; for all I know it's amazingly
wonderful. What I object to
Brandon, you have absolutely no idea how the JVM works.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
And not having time to sort through the duplicate imports which are
definitely killing load time...
And ignoring the fact that you are doing Dotted imports which add up
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
* How do you persist data? (low-level, jdo, objectify, etc)
Actually I use a multi-approach based on the work being done. Python has
NDB, CachePy, and a number of things that Java seems to missing good analogs
for, but using
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
I know what an end point is. Apparently you don't. Each of what you call
and End point should be a micro app. A single purpose App that handles one
type of request.
All I have to say is wow. I'm really glad you're just a
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Aleksei Rovenski
aleksei.roven...@gmail.com wrote:
I can understand that GAE is more optimized for python than for java.
Maybe it is a highly specialized tool for really tiny apps that use no
frameworks. But I don't get one thing. How Google plans to compete for
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
Let's see... You spend your life complaining how the platform sucks. I
release tutorials on how to make it suck less. I'm the troll?
This conversation was constructive and mostly positive until you
chimed in. It was a
Brandon, your comments are irrelevant and not constructive. The
Python runtime has a completely different startup profile from the
Java runtime. The long startup delays in Javaland occur prior to any
service calls; no amount of caching, deferring, queueing, or
serialization is going to help.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:12 AM, André Pankraz andrepank...@gmail.com wrote:
I just answer,1.5 seconds startup : yep, with java not even an empty hello
world will manage this for us mortals.
Unicorn land.
* How do you persist data? (low-level, jdo, objectify, etc)
* How many entity
Brandon, you talk a lot of shit for a guy who only discovered the task
queue 6 months ago.
Everyone who thinks they have the secret to starting up a Java app in
5s, answer these questions and prove that you're running more than a
toy:
* How do you persist data? (low-level, jdo, objectify, etc)
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:24 PM, hyperflame hyperfl...@gmail.com wrote:
I bet that the major reason is just network I/O, for the GAE servers
to find an available server, transfer a copy of the application
+libraries to that server, and start up the servlet runner. It would
explain why even
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, hyperflame hyperfl...@gmail.com wrote:
Discussing theoretical startup times is great, but I'd like to see
some real-world startups. Does anyone with high startup times ( say,
30+ seconds) want to share the results of a code profiler/appstats?
What code
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Vivek Kumar vik@gmail.com wrote:
Hie Jeff
Which thrid party system do you guys use? please share the details like how
u r using their service to send emails from your gae app
Sorry I missed this earlier. We use messagebus.com. We're very happy
with
Vik
Founder
http://www.sakshum.org
http://blog.sakshum.org
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Vivek Kumar vik@gmail.com wrote:
Hie Jeff
Which thrid party system do you guys use? please share the details
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Takashi Matsuo tmat...@google.com wrote:
To clarify, there is no any hard limit on the cold startup time except for
the hard deadline(60secs for online, 600secs for offline). The 5secs just
came from Jeff's e-mail I think. That said, it is one of the most
I don't buy this. Even if the checkout queue is 15s deep and it takes
15s to bring a cashier online, there's still no value in sending Bob
to wait by the register. For one thing, it doesn't actually reduce
Bob's wait time by a material amount (he can move to the register in a
few milliseconds).
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Drake drak...@digerat.com wrote:
Use warm up requests.
...except that thanks to a recent change, warmup requests don't
prevent users from seeing cold starts anymore. In a burst of traffic,
GAE will happily route requests to cold instances even if an active
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:55 PM, hyperflame hyperfl...@gmail.com wrote:
Massively being the key word there. Every Google service is massive.
Even abandoned or low use Google services (i.e. Wave, Buzz) are going
to use the equivalent of a minimum 10,000 F4 instances. The GAE
scheduler does
http://blorn.com/post/20185054195/ssl-for-your-domain-on-google-app-engine
It still works and it's still $20/mo. Yes, it's unencrypted between
CF and Google. Assuming you aren't taking credit cards directly, is
that a problem?
Jeff
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Doug Anderson
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Takashi Matsuo tmat...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
Hi Takashi. I've read the performancesettings documentation a dozen
times and yet the scheduler behavior still seems flawed to me.
I would
I vaguely expect something like this:
* All incoming requests go into a pending queue.
* Requests in this queue are handed off to warm instances only.
* Requests in the pending queue are only sent to warmed up instances.
* New instances can be started up based on (adjustable) depth of the
Hi Takashi. I've read the performancesettings documentation a dozen
times and yet the scheduler behavior still seems flawed to me.
Once a request is taken from the pending queue and sent to an instance
(cold or otherwise), it's dedicated to execution on that instance. In
the queue, it can still
by the memcache
put.
Jeff
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Michael Hermus
michael.her...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff: that does sound pretty awful. Is this issue limited to Python, or have
you seen similar results with Java instances?
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 8:10:14 PM UTC-4, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
I
Want help developing or optimizing your GAE app? I'm available for up
to two months, possibly on a limited basis afterwards.
You can search this group or the Objectify group
(https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/objectify-appengine)
for my comments, or check out various projects
Put this logic in a backend. Start a thread that sleeps for 3
minutes, processes cron, and goes back to sleep for 3 minutes. You'll
want to be a little more clever than that because you want to be on
3-minute boundaries not 3-minute intervals but it should be
straightforward.
Appengine's cron
I've been doing some load testing on Python27 frontends and backends
and getting some fairly awful results.
My test is a simple no-op that returns a 4-letter constant string. I
hit frontend (F1) and backend (B1) versions with ab -c 100.
The frontend peaks at about 140 requests/sec per instance.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Richard steven...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, so I sat with Jeff in a G+ hangout for a while tonight, and we could not
figure it out - other than my app is confusing the crap out of the scheduler
which is then not sending requests to instances.
Updated: This may not
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Barry Hunter barrybhun...@gmail.com wrote:
Jon McAlister here:
https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/msg/2949285edc35fc8f
seems to suggest that there is a hard 10req/sec limit enforced by the
scheduler.
That's a concurrency limit. If each request
Did switching to F4 make a difference?
Are these requests startup requests? (they will be noted in the logs
app engine started a new process...)
Have you put a log message at the beginning and end of the requests to
check timing? It would be good to know if the lag is in your code or
outside
Something is broken in GAE.
No code changes. Our production app startup time is now 60s and
experiencing downtime periods. Switching from F1 to F4 has no effect,
it still takes ~60s to start.
This code takes 10s to start with an F4 in our sandbox environment.
It does no eager loading.
We've
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:08 AM, John Patterson jdpatter...@gmail.com wrote:
The new Full Text Search API allows a find within X meters type search but
I need a bounding box search. Are there plans to implement this?
I would like to know this as well.
I would also like to know how price and
are seeing the same thing. We are also getting Deadline Exceeded errors
on just import libaries.
On Monday, July 9, 2012 11:35:27 AM UTC-7, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
Something is broken in GAE.
No code changes. Our production app startup time is now 60s and
experiencing downtime periods. Switching
take 2.5
minutes...
jon
On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:56:28 PM UTC-7, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
This problem is still ongoing. F4 instances can't get off the ground.
One instance startup attempt from a cron task (longer deadline) took
265 seconds before The process handling this request
This is something different. There is no max instances setting -
it's max idle instances. GAE will still spin up as many instances
as it deems necessary to meet demand... right up until you exhaust
quota.
FWIW, the paid scheduler does seem to operate considerably better than
the free scheduler.
I find it most convenient to make the 'manageable chunk' one single email.
It's a map/reduce-type problem. You want to map the enqueue email
task across every user. The simplest solution is to iterate across
the users and enqueue a task for each. You can do it in batches of
100 (actually
I should add that we also use a third-party email system. Ultimately
it's no harder to make a REST call to an external service than to make
a call to MailService, and many services offer a much more robust
solution. GAE's mail system has silly limitations like the inability
to send emails with
Since you have a multi-threaded app, the very first thing I would try
is switch to F4 instances. You may not need the memory, but
concurrency is theoretically limited by CPU utilization. You may find
that one F4 gives you better results than four F1s.
Jeff
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:14 PM,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Barry Hunter barrybhun...@gmail.com wrote:
It was the update that was taking all this time. Updates from remote shell
are very slow. So it took 3 hrs for 1000 or so entities that it updated and
consumed 5.8m OPs in the process!
Ah, well there you have your
Reviving this thread again:
Our production appid now blows the 60s deadline and won't start new
instances. The exact same code on our sandbox appid starts in under
20s.
We have instance(s) running and serving traffic so we're not down.
But I can't get a new version warmed up, so I can't deploy
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Richard Watson richard.wat...@gmail.com wrote:
Options I can think of:
1) Using a bigger instance. You said it had some effect on startup
time? Rather pay more while you figure it out. Also, it might kick
you off any hot instances, if you don't fit on there
Do you have some sort of loop that read forwards N entries to get to
each value? Ie, each iteration skipped forwards N-1 to get to N.
That would produce N^2 reads, or about 9 million.
Jeff
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Sarang sar...@mycontactid.net wrote:
Hello,
I have an application that
I posit that for most of the use cases where backends would apply,
they really are like-for-like with IaaS. Both backends and Compute
Instances are accessed by URLFetch and neither autoscale. They
probably have similar latency numbers. Thanks to the remote api, you
can even access services in
I'm trying to imagine what kind of application intersects:
1) The set of applications which require fractional-second time precision
2) The set of applications which can be run on GAE, which makes no
guarantees WRT clock skew, let alone latency between components.
Seems to me that Google's
Interesting. From John Patterson's comments, it sounds like I can
remove bytecode generation by disabling the AOP stuff in Guice.
Unfortunate because I rely on interceptors pretty heavily, but I can
probably find an alternative. Thanks for the suggestion; I will do
some experimentation.
We're
Experiment #1: JARing my classes.
Times are measured by shutting down instance, hitting a URL, looking
at request time in logs. Repeat until bored.
First, the control. My app (sandbox appid), normally deployed
(classes in WEB-INF/classes):
21118ms
23849ms
35995ms
20556ms
21620ms
23718ms
Oh, an added bonus: Deployment is faster since it clones half the
number of files.
Jeff
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
Experiment #1: JARing my classes.
Times are measured by shutting down instance, hitting a URL, looking
at request time in logs
entirely I/O.
Maybe F2 instances aren't actually twice the CPU power of an F1?
Maybe F4 instances get some special I/O priority? Anyone want to
speculate?
Jeff
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
Experiment #1: JARing my classes.
Times are measured
Forget OpenID. Use BrowserID (aka Mozilla Persona): https://www.browserid.org/
Jeff
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Jindřich Vavruška
radio.miskov...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
I am developing a business application that I want to run on GAE.
I tried to explain the OpenID concept
This is an interesting question, but I wouldn't exactly call tasks
free: When a task executes, your instance is invoked. Tasks are
really just a way of offsetting cost until later.
Jeff
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Michael Hermus
michael.her...@gmail.com wrote:
I know there cannot be a
I hate to sound like the cloudflare shill, but why not use them as a
frontend cache? One of their touted features is aggressive gzipping
of content.
Jeff
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Emanuele Ziglioli
theb...@emanueleziglioli.it wrote:
Of course, if anyone has any advice on making gzip
He must be referring to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jN3vH26NQ
The daily limit is one viewing. The lifetime limit is the same.
Jeff
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:24 AM, timh zutes...@gmail.com wrote:
What on earth is a speckle call quota or a speckle call for that matter ?
T
On
classloading, ie
JAX-RS):
100+
Fastest observed startup time: 35s
Typical startup time: 45s
Slowest startup time: deadlined 60s+
On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:58:29 AM UTC+2, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
* My sitemap (ie the mapping of URIs to code) is determined by
@Path annotations on 80
If you figure out how to cause this bug, please let the rest of us know ;-)
Jeff
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:41 AM, emmett9001 emm...@parsely.com wrote:
I have an appengine app that uses Amazon Route53 as its nameserver. I've
used Route53 to create a CNAME record of ghs.google.com for the
Yes, but - unless someone has rolled out a wonderful new feature
silently - you cannot make https requests to ghs.google.com. The
secure setting only works on *.appspot.com.
Jeff
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Hamilton Carter hcarter...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I believe you can cause this to
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Renzo Nuccitelli ren...@gmail.com wrote:
I don´t like flames Language A versus Language B. It just seems that
Python fits better on GAE. It´s just a matter of using the right tool for
the problem.
As someone who builds both Python and Java apps on GAE, let
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Takashi Matsuo tmat...@google.com wrote:
I'm sorry if I miss something, but I don't think these kinds of
introspection are fundamentally necessary because the class definition
doesn't change during a single version, so you can introduce some
caching mechanism.
java
libraries, but no heavyweight frameworks, and my _ah_warmup requests have
been recently averaging about 3.5 seconds.
-Mike
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:56:33 PM UTC-4, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
We're having a big problem with instance startup time. It varies
between 20s and 60+ seconds
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Richard Watson
richard.wat...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a strong suspicion that disk access with many files is an issue.
Have you made any effort to package your classes as a jar file?
I have the same suspicion. I have done tests in the past (packaging
it up by
much time?
Would be interested to learn about that.
Cheers,
Per
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:56:33 PM UTC+2, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
We're having a big problem with instance startup time. It varies
between 20s and 60+ seconds, and lately it's tending towards the high
end. We're starting
We're having a big problem with instance startup time. It varies
between 20s and 60+ seconds, and lately it's tending towards the high
end. We're starting to experience downtime because instances get
deadlined before they go active.
This app is well optimized for GAE. There's no classpath
I can tell you my solution: Don't use JSP. There are many other
Java-based template solutions that have a dev mode that reloads the
templates on every request. I use Cambridge, which is great if you're
fairly tech savvy because the docs are sparse. If you're on the
novice side, you might want
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:47 PM, alex a...@cloudware.it wrote:
And to remind you while you're bashing,
I am not bashing GAE. I offer constructive criticism of the
ill-conceived parts of GAE, of which there are several. Short of
dragging Googlers off to Las Vegas for an all-you-can-eat hookers
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:04 PM, stevep prosse...@gmail.com wrote:
A good while ago, I worked for HP.
This.
Google has been around for a little over 20 years, and most of the
employees for only a tiny fraction of that. The company is barely
adolescent. In my short years on this planet I've
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Jon McAlister jon...@google.com wrote:
Jeff Schnitzer:
} Degraded service == more profitable is a perverse
} incentive, and will eventually produce undesirable development
} priorities and turn happy customers into angry customers.
This captures the issue
Dear Google: This issue is going to steadily erode the goodwill of
even your best customers. It looks really bad.
Long ago it was suggested that one of the advantages of the new
pricing system is that it would be more transparent. A year of
experience later, the new pricing system is
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
I know exactly how much every request cost me.
cpm_usd=0.000308
cpm_usd=0.000175
These numbers tell you how much a request cost, but don't tell you how
much another identical request will cost.
Also, what do these
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
These numbers tell you how much a request cost, but don't tell you how
much another identical request will cost.
The variance between my identical requests is less than 10%.
Only when GAE is behaving normally. As the
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:39 PM, alex a...@cloudware.it wrote:
Secondly, for a mid to high load app you will definitely end up running more
than one EC2 instance (otherwise, you might as well deploy your app on a PC
sitting under your desk). If you don't setup Autoscale thing (if you do -
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, alex a...@cloudware.it wrote:
If by Non-GAE systems you mean mostly IaaS and stuff like Beanstalk then of
course they are less sensitive, but again we're talking about different
service levels (hence different approaches in solving a specific
no reason to use Objectify under those
circumstances so its not really a problem, just something to be aware of.
Regards,
Mike
On Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:46:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
ConcurentModifcationException happens whenever you have transaction
collisions. You will often have
ConcurentModifcationException happens whenever you have transaction
collisions. You will often have transaction collisions if you modify
the same piece of data from multiple tasks.
There are two possible situations here:
1) It happens - sometimes transactions collide. The solution is
that you
Have you considered Events in Google Analytics?
If that's not powerful enough, perhaps consider Mixpanel?
Jeff
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM, stevep prosse...@gmail.com wrote:
I am asking this here rather than SO because I am not sure it
qualifies as a well-formed question.
For a site I
GAE is not inserting ads into your pages. Something else is.
Jeff
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Zech C zfy...@gmail.com wrote:
In the past, I have never had ads appear on my websites using Google
App Engine, until recently, I have ad links on my page. This would not
bother me so much, if I
If you have to ask this question, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.
Not because of Google, but because you are going to screw it up.
Read these:
http://throwingfire.com/storing-passwords-securely/
http://codahale.com/how-to-safely-store-a-password/
Better yet, use a third-party service like
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Takashi Matsuo tmat...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Hamish hgra...@afilias.info wrote:
Is it possible for you to do such moves more gradually? Such as serve some
requests from the new location and then once things are warmed up and
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Mahron gan...@xehon.com wrote:
So when a new version in deployed, all instances shutdown in the
middle of code ? Is that even written somewhere ?
Presumably all in-progress requests complete normally.
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are
Have you tried logging out of all Google domains (ie, no multi-login)
and logging into just the one you are trying to work with? This has
helped in the past.
Jeff
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Ron rc...@bonline.com wrote:
OK, I have had acknowledgement from Enterprise Support on Friday,
Is it possible you're getting the Your instance has been terminated
message? I found that overrunning the heap causes instances to be
killed with this ambiguous message.
It would be handy to have a log message indicating why an instance is
being shut down.
As far as debugging this particular
I would definitely file a Production Issue Ticket, if you haven't already.
Jeff
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Cesium cesiumpic...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Jeff,
That message would be in the logs right? Don't see it.
Yep, been fiddling with the sliders too. No joy from that.
It's the
Is it currently all settings auto and billing enabled?
I have a production environment and a staging environment (same code). I
find that without billing enabled, the staging environment sees lots of
startup requests. We've actually given up trying to run the staging
environment without billing
So when do we get access to this? :-)
http://research.google.com/pubs/pub38125.html
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
It's likely related to Google's multi-auth. Make sure you are completely
logged out of Google, then log into the one domain.
Another possibility is try different web browsers. This worked for me, but
probably because it changed login state.
I've seen this before from Google Apps. Something
Brandon, I admire your chutzpah (especially the combination of calling
someone else a spammer in the same message that you include the
contents of one of your marketing pages), but really, enough.
I'm quite happy that CloudFlare has chosen to participate in this
forum - I've tried to encourage it
Cutting this down to only the relevant parts:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
Several Schools found that their students couldn't go to their own sites
because the Net Nanny deemed their School Porn sites because of a Shared IP.
Seems like the issue
401 - 500 of 1319 matches
Mail list logo
