On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Kristopher Giesing <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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.
It does penetrate and we do value feedbacks from the community on the scheduler. What I was trying to point by referring to Jon post was: - Here is how the scheduler has been designed - If you disagree with the design, the group is a good place to discuss this but ultimately we would like to reach the point where more specific feature requests are filled (like http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=7865) that we can escalate to the engineering team. > 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. I agree we must do a better job at documenting the current scheduler behavior, care to star this feature request? :) http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5826 > > - 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. -- Johan Euphrosine (proppy) Developer Programs Engineer Google Developer Relations -- 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.
