- We have released an experimental utility, available in the Admin
Console, to
assist in migrating your application to the High Replication datastore.
This
utility allows you to copy the bulk of your data in the background, while
the
source application is still serving. You then need
Bump #3
=)
On 12 September 2011 00:38, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
Bump #2
On 7 September 2011 13:53, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
Bump
On Sunday, 4 September 2011 14:20:31 UTC+3, Sergey Schetinin wrote:
So when we deploy a new version, let's assume there was one
Bump #2
On 7 September 2011 13:53, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
Bump
On Sunday, 4 September 2011 14:20:31 UTC+3, Sergey Schetinin wrote:
So when we deploy a new version, let's assume there was one instance
running, it gets shut down, a new one is then started, how many
instance
Bump
On Sunday, 4 September 2011 14:20:31 UTC+3, Sergey Schetinin wrote:
So when we deploy a new version, let's assume there was one instance
running, it gets shut down, a new one is then started, how many
instance-hours are consumed that hour?
Another option, the version deployed has
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5784
On 5 September 2011 15:04, Johan Euphrosine pro...@google.com wrote:
You should fill a feature request here:
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/entry?template=Feature%20request
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Sergey
I thought that this will obviously be possible, but given the recent
events I don't want to assume anything.
Here's a very specific question about the scheduler: is there a way to
make sure a free app does not go above free instance-hours quota? The
datastore and other free quotas are a non-issue
to
tinker with scheduler settings, report scheduler bugs etcetc
On 5 September 2011 17:33, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought that this will obviously be possible, but given the recent
events I don't want to assume anything.
Here's a very specific question about the scheduler
After new pricing kicks in, will there still be limits on cpu usage per request?
I suspect the answer is yes, so I would also like to know why other
than that just how we wrote the thing.
Thanks.
--
http://self.maluke.com/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
(Second attempt to send this, because apparently the first one was
marked as spam. Sorry if this is duplicate, I waited 18hours before
sending this again.)
After new pricing kicks in, will there still be limits on cpu usage per request?
I suspect the answer is yes, so I would also like to know
interested.
And I suspect that Brandon would find ways to use it that just blew us away.
On Sep 4, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Sergey Schetinin wrote:
Well,.. I intentionally tried to make a suggestion that requires as little
deviation from the existing plan as possible. I have no faith in GAE team
making
Seeing how scheduler has some problems and everyone's bill depends on
how well it does its job, I think it would be fair and would do a
great deal to make new costs more transparent if you open-sourced the
scheduler. Ideally, one would be able to override scheduler logic for
their application, but
I have an app that has instances page looking like this:
http://i.imgur.com/YROrD.png
It's a very small app with billing disabled. It will not work within free
quota after the pricing change simply because the scheduler is no good.
I think one way to fix this would be to open-source the
I made a very similar request back in June -- there was zero reaction from
Google.
My suggestion is a little different -- provide a separate slider for
maximum latency for task queue requests.
-Sergey
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App
So when we deploy a new version, let's assume there was one instance
running, it gets shut down, a new one is then started, how many
instance-hours are consumed that hour?
Another option, the version deployed has a different name. The default
version is switched to that new version and the
Well,.. I intentionally tried to make a suggestion that requires as little
deviation from the existing plan as possible. I have no faith in GAE team
making anything but baby steps towards the community -- that request in the
linked ticket is way too ambitious.
-Sergey
--
You received this
Also: http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_vserver/vq7
That's 9.20 USD for those of us who don't need to pay VAT.
http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_vserver/vq12 - this one is 15 USD
w/o VAT.
http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_vserver/vq19 - 23 USD
-Sergey
--
You received
Amazingly enough AWS still prices their bandwidth from EU datacenter
at $0.120 per GB
On 4 September 2011 17:33, Philip philip.mates...@driggle.com 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
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 mal...@gmail.com wrote:
Amazingly enough AWS still prices their bandwidth from EU datacenter
at $0.120 per GB
On 4 September 2011 17:33, Philip
I might not be entirely internal network traffic, but at least the
communication between the appengine apps should be discounted.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
etc.
Thanks.
On 5 September 2011 07:36, Sergey Schetinin ser...@maluke.com wrote:
(Second attempt to send this, because apparently the first one was
marked as spam. Sorry if this is duplicate, I waited 18hours before
sending this again.)
After new pricing kicks in, will there still be limits
I see, thanks.
--
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/-/RMNN3p48VLMJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
While I agree that some people do compare apples to oranges here, I
cannot accept your claim that such changes in pricing were to be
expected. There's no precedent for a change in pricing model like
that, and consider this: Gmail was in beta for a very long time and no
doubt is a losing article
Google announced that the new pricing goes into effect by the mid-September.
At the same time the Python 2.7 runtime is not ready, and we still don't
know what concurrency levels will be allowed (neither does the development
team). There's still no word about guaranteed CPU resources per
at 8:42 AM, Sergey Schetinin ser...@maluke.com wrote:
The issue I talked about with Greg was bounced to the Apps team
anyway, as it's not appengine's fault.
Trying to file production issue resulted in 400. That’s an error.
Your client has issued a malformed or illegal request. That’s all we
know
exact
steps to reproduce.
On 1 July 2011 08:39, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is still there. Can I please get a reply from a Google employee?
On 29 June 2011 09:30, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
TLDR: There's a bug in Google Apps / App Engine that make
2011 17:35, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
File a production issue.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 03:03, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
While I was contacted by Greg off-list (thanks), the issue is still
there, after almost two months. It exhibits itself slightly
Mapping domains to different subpaths / handlers is easy. For ex see:
http://self.maluke.com/hostmap
Full disclosure: that's a link to my own blog )
-Sergey
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
To view this discussion on the
On Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:06:16 AM UTC+3, Ikai L (Google) wrote:
Robert - the limit should be:
- 10 active asynchronous RPCs. Technically, since the synchronous API just
makes an async call and blocks, I suppose this translates to 10 concurrent
RPCs per request.
What happens, if the
On 29 June 2011 07:57, Ronoaldo Pereira ronoa...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, on a spike in traffic today I got 70 instances up and running for
around 30 minutes (Java app without threading yet...). This gives around 70
instances * (30+15 minutes) = 3150 instance hours = $252.
That's 3150
The problem is still there. Can I please get a reply from a Google employee?
On 29 June 2011 09:30, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
TLDR: There's a bug in Google Apps / App Engine that make it impossible for
me to manage an existing domain alias.
I have an application that uses HR
TLDR: There's a bug in Google Apps / App Engine that make it impossible for
me to manage an existing domain alias.
I have an application that uses HR datastore, the app has an alias on a
custom domain. The problem is, I can't manage it. When I log into Google
Apps dashboard and navigate to
Greg, thank you for your answers.
It would be great if you could clarify a few more things.
1) How do you define instance available to serve a request in concurrent
environment? I suppose this means an instance that is currently serving less
than X requests. What is that X? Will it be just a
enough to discuss.
So two weeks have passed, can we get an update finally?
-Sergey
On 18 May 2011 23:06, Sergey Schetinin ser...@maluke.com wrote:
A couple more questions for the FAQ:
1) What are the expected limits on the concurrency for Python 2.7
instances? Assuming the requests handlers
On 2 June 2011 16:01, Vinuth Madinur vinuth.madi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Sergey Schetinin ser...@maluke.com wrote:
Greg D wrote a while ago:
I know I haven't been responding in this thread a lot but I've been
reading what everyone is saying and working
A couple more questions for the FAQ:
1) What are the expected limits on the concurrency for Python 2.7
instances? Assuming the requests handlers / threads are just waiting
for RPC to finish (say on urlfetch service), how many per-process are
allowed? This is probably still TBD, but a ballpark
opened Pandora's box with
questions popping up from it in a much faster rate that can be answered.
Nick
On May 18, 11:06 pm, Sergey Schetinin ser...@maluke.com wrote:
A couple more questions for the FAQ:
1) What are the expected limits on the concurrency for Python 2.7
instances? Assuming
So, I was watching the presentation on the HR datastore from the IO
2011 (
http://www.google.com/events/io/2011/sessions/more-9s-please-under-the-covers-of-the-high-replication-datastore.html
) and one thing caught my attention: the slides were showing the
frontend instances running in more than
-applications have more than one syncronised memcache - by
me test save in HR-memcache in 3 times slower, than Master/Slave
application.
On May 14, 6:56 pm, Sergey Schetinin ser...@maluke.com wrote:
So, I was watching the presentation on the HR datastore from the IO
2011
(http://www.google.com
(empty)
On May 14, 3:26 pm, Sergey Schetinin ser...@maluke.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure the memcached clusters (if there are more than one)
are not synchronized. First of all, that would be way too slow.
Second, the talk I referenced specifically mentions that when the apps
are being migrated from
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 8:16:32 PM UTC+3, Greg D wrote:
Instance hours are billed for the instances being up for an app. This is
one of the reasons that we are changing our scheduler, to ensure we aren't
creating instances that aren't needed and that we are taking down instances
once
Deployment problems are not monitored and the system status page reports no
issues. This is something GAE team failed to addressed for long time now,
star this issue to let them know you think this is important:
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=3906
-Sergey
--
You
this.
--
Best Regards,
Sergey Schetinin
http://self.maluke.com/ -- My articles and open-source stuff
http://www.maluke.com/ -- My commercial software and custom development services
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
To post
On Jul 13, 2:42 am, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
In the logs for the service being queried I can see the request that
timed out. It has caused a new server instance to be started, but it
took just a second 07-12 10:51AM 51.943 /ws/beta 200 1093ms 388cpu_ms
0kb AppEngine-Google
I'm currently getting these errors as well.
It would be nice to have a separate row for deployments status on
http://code.google.com/status/appengine
On Nov 4, 3:22 am, Kortina kort...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'm getting the following error when I try to update my app:
Server:
Any suggestions for a better way to get a response to this than
posting it here?
Thanks.
On May 26, 10:35 pm, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html
Under Prohibited Actions there's this item:
k. Sell, trade, resell or otherwise exploit the Service
, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Sergey Schetinin mal...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html
Under Prohibited Actions there's this item:
k. Sell, trade, resell or otherwise exploit the Service for any
unauthorized commercial purpose;
That can be interpreted as charging for any
46 matches
Mail list logo
