Oi Robert ;] responses below
@jsonbot Heerhugowaard, Netherlands programming schizofrenic - http://jsonbot.appspot.com On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Robert Kluin <[email protected]> wrote: > There have been one or two other threads where this has been suggested > as well. I originally had a similar thought, but after some thought I > honestly think it sounds very complicated, you'll have both CPU hours > and memory-meg-hours (or whatever). > > Google already measures your app memory use: Charts [image: help]<http://code.google.com/appengine/kb/general.html#charts> Requests/SecondRequests by Type/SecondMilliseconds/RequestErrors/SecondBytes Received/SecondBytes Sent/SecondCPU Seconds Used/SecondMilliseconds Used/SecondNumber of Quota Denials/SecondInstancesMemory Usage (MB) 6 hrs 12 hrs 24 hrs 2 days 4 days 7 days 14 days 30 days [image: Requests/Second (24 hrs)] I'm glad im below the 128 Mb limit ;] > I sometimes see much higher memory usage than expected, and we've got > no tools to debug this on production. It would probably just add > another area of 'discussion' and questioning. > > Once memory is billable, you gonna be sure that people actually try to make good use of it. If you do instance price only who cares ? As for debugging you might have point maybe google could provide the an app stats API where the app could monitor its memory usage itself (or is there already such a API) ? Bart > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 23:56, JH <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > -- > 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.
