Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

Reviving this for a bit: @Joshua: are you able to try out Python 3.8 (or 3.9) vs. 3.7 on App Engine? Several performance enhancements went into 3.8 , and I'm curious whether that helps with what you've been experiencing. Also any updates

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

Hi Matt, Yes, earlier I was trying to make dev_appserver work (along with this flag) from within PyCharm. That did not work if the base python is set up to be Python 3 in PyCharm project. It worked through command line. It also started to work when I changed the base python to python 2 in

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

I'll put it on my to-do list to make a mock application that just does this hammer-on-startup thing. That seems pretty easy. (And it'll be interesting to see if a trivial mock app takes 5s to start up, or if there's some import I'm doing that's weighing things down.) -Joshua > On Nov 5, 2021,

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

Yes, it is the same scheduler (this is all on GAE Standard, right?) Of course, that scheduler has lots of knobs. If you can build a repro, can you work with support? If anything, the concurrency of GAE Python 3 should be better than GAE Python 2. On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:36 PM Joshua Smith

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

I don't have threadsafe in my 3.7 app's app.yaml. Just runtime and instance class. (I do have it in my 2.7 app, of course.) I'll try playing with max concurrent threads, but if I bump it from 10 (the default) to 16, that really just changes it from 6 request to start an instance, to 9. Hard to

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

The scheduler is the same. This might have to do with `threadsafe` in app.yaml, which is complicated and confusing. I'd suggest removing `threadsafe` if it's present, then try setting the max_concurrent_requests to something higher (like 2x your number of workers):

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

I figured out from the logs (since it prints a message for each worker it starts) that 3.7 is starting 8 workers by default. So adding the entrypoint with defaults has no effect. However, I did some experiments and I think I can characterize the difference between 2.7 and 3.7 when it comes to

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

We'll work to open source the launcher source. In the meantime, the default logic looks like this: workerCount := 8 if memoryMb <= 128 { workerCount = 1 } else if memoryMb <= 256 { workerCount = 2 } else if memoryMb <= 512 { workerCount = 4 } The number of workers to use is highly dependent on

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

I think it's telling me that since my P3.7 app has a F4_1G instance, I should be configuring it to run gunicorn with 8 workers. I don't see any information about the default number of workers. I guess I can do an experiment to see what explicitly setting that does... > On Nov 5, 2021, at 3:17

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

It sounds like there might be some differences due to concurrency between 2.7 and 3.7/8/9. There are some notes on how to tweak the number of worker processes started for Python 3 here: https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/standard/python3/runtime#entrypoint_best_practices On Friday, 5

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

There is no official description, somewhere, of "how the scaling has changed" or "how it has been implemented differently", as there is no change in scaling behavior, and no different implementation. This is an assumption while we investigate the situation described by Joshua above. I could

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

Hello David, >There’s not an official way of forcing the scaling to behave like it used to be on python 2.7. Is there an official description, somewhere, of "how the scaling has changed" or "how it has been implemented differently" ? Or this change just a side effect of technical choices that

Re: [google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

Hello, Other than applying changes within your own application so it will go easy at startup, you can try using warmup requests along with tweaking the min_idle_instances element

[google-appengine] Updates from the Google App Engine team (Fall 2021)

App Engine and Google Cloud serverless users: The App Engine team at Google Cloud had a flurry of announcements and product updates over the past few months. In case you missed them, we've summarized them here with relevant links.