I've created a production issue :
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5414
You might want to star it.
Francois
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
I have created a new issue specifically asking for metrics/statistics on
rate of instance startup shutdown,
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5458
If you interested star or even add some more stats/numbers your would like
to see.
I think this is going to be important
@Per, thanks for the data, that is very helpful! There are a
couple of things going on here. The first is that it is spinning
up several new dynamic instances at a time. That's definitely a
bug, and I've confirmed why its happening. We'll fix that for the
next release.
For your warmup requests, I
This whole thread is an excellent example of why I'm not at all enthusiastic
about the new pricing.
Mike is 100% correct, this behavior is amazing unintuative and confusing.
If we will be paying around $60 per month per instance, why would we ever
want one to sit idle? Shouldn't App Engine serve
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
This whole thread is an excellent example of why I'm not at all enthusiastic
about the new pricing.
Mike is 100% correct, this behavior is amazing unintuative and confusing.
If we will be paying around $60 per month
Hi Jon and Ikai,
I've been seeing crazy amounts of warmup requests all week. For
instance, while one request was being served, 5 to 7 instances started
up *simultaneously*, although there was no other load. Now, the *next*
request was almost guaranteed to hit one of the new instances, which
are
Hi
I thought I would chime in, I am slowly starting to get my head around what
you are suggesting
in terms of scheduler behaviour.
Though you do mention min idle-instances (which isn't a tuneable parameter
as I understand it.)
So I will mention what I am seeing on a low frequency use site.
We
thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sure a lot of people will be confused by this.
Maybe add a $ next to instances that we are being charged for so it's
obvious?
Thanks for your excellent support
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
Mike, you aren't being charged for these instances in the current billing
scheme. Because you're being charged for CPU hours, if you use 5 CPU hours,
whether those CPU hours are served by 100 instances or 10 instances - you
pay the same. You would only pay more under the new (as of yet to be
Wow that's awesome. Thanks Jon for the very thoughtful analysis.
I understand what's going on now.
I recommend you change the scheduler to favor instances that have been
warmed up
over N milliseconds where N is the average start-up time for the app.
You should never send a request to a new
Just ran a volume test on my server.
The three reserved instances are not getting any traffic.
That can't be normal.
Instead GAE spawned 3 dynamic instances to handle all the load.
I have set Max Idle instances to 3.
Why would you ever want instances to sit idle under a load test?
If you have
Because the scheduler is now treating the reserved instances as
Min-Idle-Instances, what you're describing is expected
behavior. They are intentionally kept idle, and it tries to serve
traffic using the non-reserved instances. Then, if the
non-reserved instances can't keep up, then it will make
12 matches
Mail list logo
