+1 bill by : cpu cycles + memory used + may be overhead of spinning new instances. it is not only about savings by optimizing it helps the environment too. This is what I call "green computing".
Nick On May 22, 11:54 pm, Danny Tuppeny <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22 May 2011 21:39, Anders <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Oh, you're right! Separating CPU and RAM usage would be a good idea (if it > > can be done in practice). The price model already contains a large number of > > different quotas for all kinds of APIs and stuff. Separating CPU and RAM > > usage would not add much complexity. There is still of course the problem > > with how to measure CPU time. Is idle CPU time included, or is 100% CPU load > > the only measurement or is some other average combination used? > > I think the "current" (eg. live today, not after the change) method is the > fairest - you're effectively billed for the CPU cycles. This way you can > save money by optimising, and not charged when your app is idle. If RAM > costs money, then that should be charged too. I'm a huge fan of paying for > what you actually get, and no "all-you-can-eat" deals like the "newer" CPU > billing. > > If you don't charge people for a resource, they will chomp it up. Why waste > time optimising your CPU usage if the cost doesn't change? -- 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.
