I'd prefer this over the instance billing as well On May 31, 8:36 pm, Bart Thate <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings ! > > As i understand it this whole move of Google is because they discovered that > it is the memory occupied thats is the cost factor requiring this drastic > move. So if that is the case why not introduce a new billable entitiy > "memory" ? That way users can still get their bill for what they use and it > gives us programmers the incentive to be sparefull with such a costly > attribute of GAE. > My feeling is that this "we will make the scheduler work ok for you" > argument is not going to work as the question is how will Google make the > working of this scheduler clear to us users ? I never had the feeling Google > is open about how they do things and i don't think Google will open up the > exact workings of this piece of key software. > > Why not keep what is running fine and add the "memory tax" on top of it. > > Billing needs to be clear and verifiyable otherwise this move will not work. > > Bart > > @jsonbot Heerhugowaard, Netherlands > programming schizofrenic -http://jsonbot.appspot.com
-- 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.
