> They've been pretty clear about that. If I am following (which would not be the first time that I am not) and if we are talking about the same things then when is it that they started to indicate that their whole resources measurements and billing model is broken and that it needs to be rethought ? My main point is that they waited too long and that way less damage would have been cause much earlier - before too many developers invested themselves to heavily on a "free" and/or "very inexpensive lunch" platform. My whole point is that if there is anyone in the world who can figure it out and who has empirical data with which to figure it all out then its certainly GOOG. Perhaps they tried to be too innovative while even to this day they appear not to have the technology that enables true resource sharing so that it is not being hogged - be it cpu or memory. So, if you can not make something shareable and reusable then what ever made them think that they could ever be able to sustain the burden that is caused by the fact that resources that were being hogged while not being used were indeed being given away. So, they swung the pendulum from that silly notion all the way into the new scheme of where they have 15 minute penalty for a resource that they much earlier grab back and reuse elsewhere. With that 15 minute period in mind, just how many times could the same "memory" end up being used and concurrently charged. That is not only a draconian change but it also reeks of unfairness - even dishonest unfairness.
-- 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.
