I think you're worried about the wrong thing here. Given the [probable] surplus of CPU in the cluster, it's unlikely that your app will be starved for CPU. And does your app's frontend really perform all that much computation?
On the other hand, what happens when there is a blip in datastore/network/whatever latency? Assuming you're running at reasonably optimal concurrency, you're suddenly going to need many more instances. Your bill is going to depend heavily on factors entirely outside of your control. Before, the health of GAE was Google's problem. Now it's your problem. Jeff On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Anders <[email protected]> wrote: > And it is said that the new price model is more transparent. But CPU hours > at least sounds more transparent. How many instances share the same CPU in a > GAE server? 1, 2, 10 or 100? The new price model seems more opaque. For > example, if 10 instances share the same CPU, then only (at best, not > counting overhead) 1/10 of the CPU power will be available to each instance > given they consume the same amount CPU time each, and yet all 10 instances > will be billed the full price! What a rip off. Or probably I have missed > something, but still, it's not clear. A better price model is needed imo. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine for Java" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
