On Friday, August 24, 2012 2:59:11 PM UTC-7, Johan Euphrosine (Google) wrote: > > > On Aug 24, 2012 11:28 PM, "Mos" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > Thanks Johan. I read the post some days before. > > > > As often discussed on the mailing-list before and as Jeff said in this > thread. > > It's the combination of "Requests should never be sent to cold > instances." > > Please star this existing feature request: > http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=7865 > Done.
> > and(!) the behavior of min idle instance which doesn't make any sense. > > Like Jon explained in the post I linked, the scheduler will favor routing > traffic to idle dynamic instance rather than idle reserved idle instance > and it will always try to maintain the invariant of N x Min-Idle-Instances > by starting new instance if the reserved instances are busy. > OK, the post by Jon was an interesting read because it explains why Google seems to think everything is working as intended. What doesn't seem to be penetrating is that it doesn't matter what some definition on a piece of paper somewhere says the system is supposed to do, if that definition doesn't actually help developers build good products. The feature starred above absolutely needs to be implemented. I just wish there was an easier way of getting customers who are frustrated by the instancing behavior to focus on that one feature request, because the naive interpretation of the existing GAE tuning parameters suggests it shouldn't be necessary. - Kris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/w3m3ZmnH18cJ. 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.
