I don't think so. I don't know why they aren't running a caching mechanism in front of this. I can't imagine that a museum has a lot of data that changes.
I may be the wrong person to ask since I believe in Cache everything, cache some more, and assume 80% of users all want 5% of your content. In my world HR makes sense because the latency hit, only hits you like 5% of the time. so doubling 5% of requests in exchange for no read only mode on the site seems like a fair trade. That said I don't know how they get a homepage to serve in 250ms http://drakaalfirst.appspot.com/blackwater.css is served from static and is 32k in size, it takes 500ms to serve. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 2:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [google-appengine] "Beauty On the Outside, High Replication on the Inside" The conclusion? Hello, This morning i have read the last article from appengine blog. "Beauty On the Outside, High Replication on the Inside" (http://goo.gl/45CxM) I don't have understood the conclusion, with datastore HR the latency is doubled. 400ms is really a reasonable latency? It is a good choice to migrate in datastore HR? the big problem with rpc are deadlines, if HR takes more time, what is the benefice? The risk are to get more deadlines, no? --sahid -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" 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?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" 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?hl=en.
