On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:05 PM, vlad <[email protected]> wrote: > Because I thought that all 3 methods that did not work involved storing data > in Datastore. If you used Backend RAM as storage, well, ok it is an > inventive way to use Backend, I guess. I think Backends are a wrong feature > all together. I just does not with GAE concept as a scalable, > no-configuration system. But I guess we have ourselves to blame. Some of us > screamed so much about 60 sec time limit in front-ends. And this time Google > decided to "listen" and gave us Backends :)
Only one of the 3 failed attempts used the datastore; the others were task queue and single-backend. I also think that backends are a misfeature, but for different reasons: * As an in-memory index, they are waaay too expensive for any reasonable quantity of RAM. * As a repository of in-game state (ie this case), they don't provide enough throughput. * As a way around the 60s timeout for frontends... I'd really just rather have the ability to run frontend requests longer. And to define groups of frontends of different sizes. As Google Compute Engine rolls out, I expect the appeal of backends will diminish considerably. Which is too bad, because if they were cheaper and faster they would be really incredibly useful. Jeff -- 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.
