Hi Nick, Thanks for responding and looking into this. See my response below;
On Nov 24, 8:57 pm, Nick Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:48 PM, WallyDD <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am having something of similar problem with instances not turning > > off. > > This isn't a problem - you're not being charged for those instances. You'll > only be charged if demand requires sending traffic to them, in which case > you've been saved the overhead of starting up a new instance. I am very much being charged for these instances. > > The resident instances do nothing and stay idle while other instances > > serve. Not entirely sure if it is related to your issue. > > If you've specified a 'min idle instances' greater than 0, then this is > behaving as documented. The point of requesting idle instances is to handle > sudden increases in traffic volume while more instances are being spun up > in the background; naturally this means that they have to remain idle while > waiting for a traffic spike that will require them. The second instance fires up when traffic overloads the resident instance(s). The new dynamic instance(s) then stay on, permanently. So I get charged for both instances, one of which does nothing. If it is behaving as documented, which part of the documentation should I be looking at? - sb > -Nick Johnson > -- 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.
