While startup times appears to be a contentious topic. I think that we can
all agree that:
*Fewer Instance *==* Few Cold Starts *==* Happy Customers *==* Smaller Bills
*
Currently Apps of all sizes are capped at 10 concurrent requests. F4
instance can handle no more concurrent request then a F1
Great news, everyone! I have replaced all String concatenation with
StringBuilder, and extensively reordered all my import statements. My startup
time has been reduced 50% from twice it's original value.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:42 PM, David Hardwick
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 mega contributor to
> reduci
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 mega contributor
to reducing startup time. I would hate to have to spend the team's tim
I have a large GWT app with over 50 complex data entities with very
complicated relationships between them. There are over 100 RPC methods, and
I use various GAE services (Users, Memcache, Blobstore, Images, and Mail).
My new instance startup time ranges from 4 to 5 sec on F1. Sometimes it
goe
I didn't read in full everything here, but using StringBuilder is good old
optimization, strange many don't know it here...
http://www.venishjoe.net/2009/11/java-string-concatenation-and.html
Having said that it seems that both of you are kind of right, recent JDK's
compile '+' into StringBuilder
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Drake 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 up and star the i
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.
> Try compiling these two classes. They produce *identical* class files:
>
> F
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Drake 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? Seriously, I've never
met
But back to the roots...long loops have nothing to do with class loading in
java ;) imports and loops - we would be hard pressed to find a _relevant_
example. really... I don't believe you the Smart-Java-Guy story.
200 ms through import-reordering? nope...no imports in bytecode...just
straigt by
Pankraz
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 5:25 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
You should really focus an general architecture of the app for
optimizing...havn't looked into the provided example.
Your micro-optimizin
: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 5:25 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
You should really focus an general architecture of the app for
optimizing...havn't looked into the provided example.
Your micro-optimizing suggestion
On 5 hours now of sleep so I can form sentences:
>Your micro-optimizing suggestions for Java ...I think all Java guys are
like ROFL now.
>Star visa Full Imports, String Concatenations in this example visa
StringBuilder
Y'all'd be right if this was 100 lines of code in Java 101.
What you
You should really focus an general architecture of the app for
optimizing...havn't looked into the provided example.
Your micro-optimizing suggestions for Java ...I think all Java guys are
like ROFL now.
Star visa Full Imports, String Concatenations in this example visa
StringBuilder
Really,
Am Donnerstag, 12. Juli 2012 18:26:40 UTC+2 schrieb David Hardwick:
>
> Hello,
>
> I realize there's been a lot of discussion on startup times exceeded on
> this forum recently, but wanted needed to post this experience we had this
> morning to keep the attention on this important issue.
>
> We
https://img.skitch.com/20120724-xdwyfjbfe7pxeyh2aa98938yxd.jpg
No memory spikes.
Jeff
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Drake 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 can you hit shut
I am crashing now.
Splitting out the app I can make it load much faster. That seems to work.
You would have two "apps" one living only on a backend, and accessed via an
"api" (places) This gets your warm up way down, and shouldn't cost much
more money.
--
You received this message because you
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 can you hit shutdown an app, hit it and see what the
memory is 30 seconds after start?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
That's on your stock code. No changes.
--
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...@go
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Drake 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-cwa7r2g9x77
What does your usage profile look like? It looks like if I kill off all the
places code I can get this to 86 megs after warm up.
If you put places on a backend, it looks like you could serve this off of an
always one F1 backend, and alwasys on F1 frontend. And your warmups would be
about 2.5 seco
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.
On an F2 I can do like 5 places and it soft memories and restarts.
On an F4 I do about 350
How many requests are you seeing.
Why do you hate garbage collection so much?
I don'
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Drake 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());
You're eit
Oh, and you are right the biggest slow down is grabbing data via HTTP.
(usually is)
But that doesn't seem to be hurting concurrency.
The obvious question.
Why aren't you mirroring the site so that you have your own fast copy?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
> That makes absolutely no sense. The app doesn't cache data in instances;
> there's utterly no point to using weak references.
Your app runs for multiple seconds, you get garbage collection in that time
and since you also feel no need to destroy objects you aren't using... this
would be a lazy w
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 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 reduce your need to
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());
At least most of your code uses objects correctly I didn't find any
Odd. I get different results than you do.
Quite different actually.
.* in the sandbox is slower (by a lot)
.* on f4 is faster
Also, I think you are very wrong about dynamically/lazily loading classes.
Since my version warms up in 2.5s on an F2. (though I have an initialization
missing somewhere
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 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 it works.
> Did
I blew up or created some circular reference because it's late and I had a
lousy week... I'm not familiar enough with the code, but you have several
objects whose creation should be moved to the top of your code. And a few
places you should swap to mutable returns.
The mutable returns won't speed
Also None of your references are weak? Do you just hate garbage collectors?
That won't help much with startup, but again it would reduce your need to
startup as often.
You do a lot of String + String.. use stringbuffer instead
You do a lot of .Trim when you should use Vector
And yes in a few sp
Really?
You don't think that doing lazy class loads would speed up your startup?
Did you try?
Did you benchmark Dotted Imports vs full import, or "less dotted"? I
knocked 1s of the startup just by * importing objectify, that you took all
of but did so in 6 places.
No, you never try anything.
Brandon, you have absolutely no idea how the JVM works.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Drake 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 to most
> if not
PS, sorry I was driving home between when you through down the gauntlet, and
10 minutes before I posted this. And I had to pee, which slowed me down.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to go
.
From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Stevens
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 7:35 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
On Monday, July 23, 2012 6:37:15 PM
On Monday, July 23, 2012 6:37:15 PM UTC-7, Brandon Wirtz wrote:
>
> CDN isn't my primary. I mostly do other things. You seem stuck on my CDN.
> I
> don't even promote the damn thing it helps with my old SEO clients. Our
> analytics and Ad management platforms are full on business apps. We do
>
CDN isn't my primary. I mostly do other things. You seem stuck on my CDN. I
don't even promote the damn thing it helps with my old SEO clients. Our
analytics and Ad management platforms are full on business apps. We do real
database stuff. We did 1million write ops in an hour the other day. ( I can
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Drake 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 is that you ar
August 25th I have an app launch. It is no small thing. My CDN is a Toy in
the view you have of it. But the internal version is designed to make all
the other stuff work. It is a load balanacing url handling, code
modularizing tool. But you keep slamming my CDN because you like those
other "CDN g
I can't believe I'm keeping this thread going, but...
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Drake 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 group by task
On GAE it's not just the startup.. Well it is, but for more reasons. You
have less memory too. So someone's really optimized framework might be
AMAZING for CPU optimizations, but the cost of adding it from a memory
standpoint causes you to hit the soft limit instance death more often. Which
causes
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:38:12 AM UTC-5, Paul v wrote:
>
> Well I love the who's-a-better-guru argument. I've learned a ton reading
> this thread, I hope they keep going at it.
Just out of sheer curiosity, what exactly have you learned from reading
this read? Really, the entire discussion b
-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul v
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:38 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
Well I love the who's-a-better-guru argument. I've learned a ton reading
this thread, I hope they k
Well I love the who's-a-better-guru argument. I've learned a ton reading
this thread, I hope they keep going at it.
--
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/
Personally, I don't care much for the who's-a-better-guru argument, doesn't
get us any closer to a solution.
App Engine proves Joel Spolsky's "all abstractions are leaky" statement. An
abstraction is nice when it works but you'd better know what's going on
under the hood when it doesn't. Most o
ke the customer happy
if you avoid a warm up.
> -Original Message-
> From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com [mailto:google-
> appeng...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of hyperflame
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:28 AM
> To: Google App Engine
> Subject: [google-appengine]
On Jul 22, 5:12 am, Aleksei Rovenski
wrote:
> Regarding min idle instances, I must admit there is something strange
> going on in my Instance tab in Dashboard.
> I have settings like this: idle instances min=auto, max=1, pending
> queue min and max=15s. I have some working instances that I get
> c
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 group by task
type, and used class so that you had many smaller apps, that were optimized
for like tasks and minimizing clas
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Drake 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 reasonable discussion of
Starred and the one posted by Takashi also just in case...
Regarding min idle instances, I must admit there is something strange
going on in my Instance tab in Dashboard.
I have settings like this: idle instances min=auto, max=1, pending
queue min and max=15s. I have some working instances that I g
even, and give
> higher QoS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com [mailto:google-
> > appeng...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Aleksei Rovenski
> > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 2:05 AM
> > To:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Aleksei Rovenski
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
> java apps by selling
...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Aleksei Rovenski
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 2:05 AM
> To: Google App Engine
> Subject: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
>
> I can understand that GAE is more optimized for python than for java.
> Maybe it is a high
> All I have to say is "wow". I'm really glad you're just a troll here and
not
> actually responsible for anything I depend on.
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?
Anyone who thinks the low level ap
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
java apps by selling platform that forces you to not use frameworks? I
simply refuse to
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Drake 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 troll here
and n
r
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:18 AM
> To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Drake wrote:
> >> * How do you persist data? (low-level, jdo, objectify, etc)
>
> I will be generous and assume for the moment that this makes sense for
> your particular application. At best you are arguing that you have a
wacky
> application. You won't find too many people building business apps that
way,
> especially when you have elaborate transactional logic.
> There a
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Drake 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 the lowlevel A
ther of the old Fords do. Because it is optimized.
From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mauricio Aristizabal
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 12:28 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time
I really don't care who has the shiniest toys in this playground, bottom
line is that I consider every minute spent getting my app to load faster a
complete waste of my time. Adding business logic, minimizing user request
times and costs, that's what I care about, not jumping through hoops to g
osting your entire client base.
> -Original Message-
> From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com [mailto:google-
> appeng...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:27 PM
> To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [google-appeng
> This isn't a counterexample, for the reason that you mentioned in the
> first sentence: you can serve everything off one instance. The
> original poster needs multiple instances, and to be able to scale as
> load changes. If you're not loading new instances, then startup time
> is pretty much irr
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:24 PM, hyperflame 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 simple apps have l
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 Jul 21, 4:50 pm, Tomas wrote:
> I use spring in work for other projects which runs on full java stack (but
> thats just Tomcat/Jetty) and when I run the "new" librarist equivalent code
> on Micro instance on AWS (which is like 600MB ram and 1.8Ghz - I might be
> wrong here a little bit), the
On Jul 21, 5:17 pm, "Drake" wrote:
> unicorn land where you traded having nice friendly donkey's who will put up
> with what ever shit you feed them and still pull your wagon, for a flying
> unicorn that shoots rainbows out of its ass but requires that you don't just
> give it a sugar cube every n
Here is a counter example. We are a small app with peak traffic of 1 request
per second. We use java. No frameworks. We use jdo, guice. Startup time 20
seconds. Average request latency under 500 ms. We have been on appengine close
to 2 years. Right now we are able to serve our users with one ins
ps.com] On Behalf Of Tomas
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:50 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
Hi guys,
I actually didn't want to reply to this thread originally even I was the one
who opened the small thread 3 months
Hi guys,
I actually didn't want to reply to this thread originally even I was the
one who opened the small thread 3 months ago regarding the very slow
startups on gae with spring + velocity + objectify but after reading the
email telling me I should "write modular apps and don't use frameworks"
Are you using a free or paid app to do your testing? My understanding
is that paid apps are treated preferentially by the scheduler.
On Jul 21, 3:49 pm, André Pankraz wrote:
> May be it's my language barrier...don't know. Whats hard to understand in
> NewProject->HelloWorld-Servlet->3 seconds sta
zyloads of everything you need to be ready to do real work.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* google-appengine@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> google-appengine@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *hyperflame
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:47 PM
> *To:* google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> *S
hyperflame
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:47 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
I just looked over the logs of a corporate GAE application. It's a very
simple "heartbeat" application; essentially our producti
May be it's my language barrier...don't know. Whats hard to understand in
NewProject->HelloWorld-Servlet->3 seconds startup time->1,5 s isn't true
and cannot be true
If I take 500 ms away for the request because i'm so terribad it's still >3
s startup time, for HelloWorld. Even if it's 2.5 s in a
I just looked over the logs of a corporate GAE application. It's a very
simple "heartbeat" application; essentially our production applications
have to send a message to it periodically. The message sent is about 500
characters; the application does some checksum-ing and sends back a JSON
strin
: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of André Pankraz
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:19 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
I use getRessourceAsStream an Stream-copy - but
I use getRessourceAsStream an Stream-copy - but you miss the point...it's a
Hello World, done in 5 minutes as test for your post, stripping away all
excuses.
The calls after startup are answered in <80 ms.
That mans that I'm still far above 3 seconds for initializing of an empty
project. I could
: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
Hi,
I do nothing. I have 1 Servlet, no additional Libs. The Servlet reads a
local ressource and writes it to the output stream, thats all.
Hello World.
Even the empty container does need some class loading - thats the Java
world. And currently
in memcache.
From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of André Pankraz
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:00 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
Hi,
I do nothing. I
Hi,
I do nothing. I have 1 Servlet, no additional Libs. The Servlet reads a
local ressource and writes it to the output stream, thats all.
Hello World.
Even the empty container does need some class loading - thats the Java
world. And currently people have startup timing problems.
1.5 Seconds ar
@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of André Pankraz
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:27 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
Brandon, your 1.5 seconds - I call this nonsense in Java world, thats all.
Create empty Java Project with 1 Servlet
Brandon, your 1.5 seconds - I call this nonsense in Java world, thats all.
Create empty Java Project with 1 Servlet, disable JDO/Datanucleus stuff, no
Framework, nothing.
2012-07-21 12:14:33.275 / 200 3525ms 1kb Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0;
rv:14.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/14.0.1
May be there wa
t; those people live in a magical land not available to everyone else.
> Google
> doesn't look at my Email associated with the app and give me a performance
> bonus. (I Know I checked)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-
>
Schnitzer
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:19 AM
> To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
>
> Brandon, your comments are irrelevant and not constructive. The Python
> runtime has a completely different startup
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:12 AM, André Pankraz 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 kinds/classes do you have?
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.
Jef
I just answer,1.5 seconds startup : yep, with java not even an empty hello
world will manage this for us mortals.
Unicorn land.
--
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
I just answer,1.5 seconds startup : yep, with java not even an empty hello
world will manage this for us mortals.
Unicorn land.
--
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
Oh, OK. Thank you Brandon.
--
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/-/rvs4uS2r6LkJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@goog
Cache Incoming requests= The thing that I am always accused of. Use Edge
Cache to make sure you don't need to serve people who are asking for the
same thing.
Fault Tolerant writes is about determining how "race" your race conditions
are, and being smart about your writes.
Common things I see,
Hi Brandon,
> The people who don't know how to build APIs so that apps are task
> specific. Piss me off. Build modular. Dump frame works. Defer often. Be
> your own scheduler by shaping internal ops. Cache incoming. Cache reads
> cache writes. Manage threads. Use warmups. This is not rocket s
age-
> From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com [mailto:google-
> appeng...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:00 AM
> To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Startup time exceeded...on F4?!
>
>
>If you follow the group longer you should know - Brandom lives in GAE
unicorn land and all you ever need are proper Edge cache settings. ;)
No, I just don't write code using unnecessary frameworks and I do a ton of
testing and architecture planning.
Most everyoneelse never uses defer or t
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, hyperflame 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 profiler works on GAE ser
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?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Eng
>
> Perfect, thanks; that is all I am asking for!
>
> Additionally, we started an internal discussion about reviving warmup
> requests for dynamic instances. If you want this feature, please star the
> following issue:
> http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=7865
>
> -- Taka
If you follow the group longer you should know - Brandom lives in GAE
unicorn land and all you ever need are proper Edge cache settings. ;)
Am Freitag, 20. Juli 2012 10:16:28 UTC+2 schrieb Simon Knott:
>
> That's just not true - I have an app which uses no third-party libraries
> at all, uses n
Sorry, but, please forget about 5 secs 'magic' window. There is no any
hard/soft deadline/threshold like that in the current App Engine system.
It was just a one example of well behaved apps. Let me rephrase what I
meant to say.
With app engine, it is always a good practice to keep the loading re
That's just not true - I have an app which uses no third-party libraries at
all, uses no persistence and in fact it uses no GAE services. It simply
has one servlet which processes request headers and returns a response. My
average start-up time for this app is 3 seconds, when it's running well
I did, and used Objectify (Jeff is kinda familiar with that I think :)). A
plain Hello World with only registering the entities will get you around
the 4-5 sec mark, which is hardly a real application.
I have a highly optimized app as a backend for my Android app, and that
even takes around th
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
