Thank you ID for the feedback. I have updated the code to improve on two things: speed and cost (by reducing frontend instance hours). I accomplished this by introducing caching at the instance level. This has the effect of avoiding a ton of calls to memcache which was the bottleneck that I discovered using Appstat. The caveat is if you have more than one instance running, writes to the website will cause the output to be inconsistent across multiple instances.
I don't believe you can have multiple instances running on GAE's free quota anyway but if you are paying for more than one instance and you care about immediate global consistency, the behaviour can be switched off by setting INSTANCE_CACHING_ENABLED = False in settings.py before deployment. My frontend instance usage per page is improved by over three times meaning that you can serve over three times as much traffic as previously before running out of quota. I have yet to package it into a release but you can check it out from the repository for the new changes. I hope you give it a try again ID and apologies for any misunderstandings. Best regards, Imran On Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:04:47 AM UTC-5, ID wrote: > > hi imran, i'm not comparing gaecms to static files. i used gaewiki too > with with same site, no quota problems, i found out that a wiki was not > suitable for such site. > > i thought gaecms was great, and i just want to make you aware of an > invisible problem that i encountered, i reorted because i cared of it, else > i wouldn't have bothered to sit and write a coule of lengthy messages. > > have a good day. > > On Saturday, December 8, 2012 5:39:08 AM UTC+8, GAE-CMS wrote: >> >> Hi ID, >> >> Thank you for your feedback and your positive comments about gae-cms. >> Any CMS would fail compared to static HTML files being served in terms of >> frontend instance hours or any other quota for that matter. The issue is >> whether the ease-of use and features that the CMS brings makes it worth it >> as a website creator rather than to write HTML from scratch. If you have >> 10 pages it might be worth it to do in static HTML but if you have 100 it >> is rather cumbersome to maintain that many static files. This is where a >> CMS comes in which will necessarily use up more of your quota as it has to >> make memcache lookups, make calls to the database and perform CPU intensive >> tasks that do not exist when a server is simply returning static files. >> >> Having said that it is my goal to make gae-cms as cheap as possible and I >> don't think my own website gae-cms.com has gone down yet on account of >> using up the free account quota that it currently has even with 100s of >> hits. It would probably be more useful to compare multiple CMS' to >> determine which is the cheapest rather than comparing it to static pages. >> But I think your criticism is still somewhat valid and I will try to >> profile it and clear up any bottlenecks that might be unreasonably using up >> the free quota. >> >> Thank you, >> Imran >> >> On Thursday, December 6, 2012 10:41:43 PM UTC-5, ID wrote: >>> >>> Hi Imran, this is my site http://gokturkanitlari.appspot.com/ >>> >>> I used GAE-CMS for few days only, during those days, every day my site >>> was shut down for half day for being "over quota" in appsot.com it >>> shows "over quota" for "frontend instance hours" my site maybe got 200-300 >>> page views daily then, that should not cause over quota. >>> >>> i had to remove gae-cms after using just few days. i now use static >>> files instead, have no problems since, even the page views increased to >>> 400-500 daily. >>> >>> i'm not sure what was the problem, i had not modified gae-cms, i just >>> downloaded it and installed as it is.. i hope you can fix it. it's great >>> product, elegant, clean, easy, functional.. >>> >>> please let me know if you fix it, i very much like to use it. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:31:23 PM UTC+8, GAE-CMS wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear ID, sorry for the troubles. Can you confirm which Frontend >>>> Instance Class you are using? I have not faced this problem with similar >>>> usage so I'm not sure why. I do make use of lots of caching but maybe you >>>> can take a look with a fresh set of eyes? I was just about to announce >>>> the >>>> release of the latest beta version which uses ndb instead of db so this >>>> might help you out as it has 2 additional layers of caching before the >>>> database call. Please have a look. Also if you can point me to your site >>>> I can try setting up a similar one and see where the problem might be? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Imran >>>> >>>> On Friday, October 12, 2012 6:11:56 AM UTC-4, ID wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Imran, GAE-CMS consumes the appengine's free quota for "frontend >>>>> instance hours" very quickly!! perhaps need some caching/optimizing? >>>>> >>>>> it turned out to be a big problem for me! google shut my site 2nd time >>>>> for being over quota. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:06:59 AM UTC+8, GAE-CMS wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am the creator of a brand new CMS called >>>>>> GAE-CMS<http://www.gae-cms.com>. >>>>>> It is based on Google App Engine written in Python 2.7. It is free and >>>>>> open source (GPL). It has been designed from the ground up for speed >>>>>> and >>>>>> usability. As well it is very easy for designers to modify every aspect >>>>>> of >>>>>> the theme and apply different themes to different sections of the >>>>>> website. >>>>>> It is developed in a very modular way with different types of content >>>>>> able >>>>>> to inherit from the base content class and define how it behaves and its >>>>>> views. I believe it is a fresh new take on CMSs and believe it could >>>>>> surpass some of the current great CMSs if enough developers get behind >>>>>> it. >>>>>> This is an open call to developers to check out our project, install it, >>>>>> use it and if you believe in it then contribute back and join our >>>>>> leadership team to help guide the vision of this project. Visit >>>>>> http://www.gae-cms.com for more information and access to the code. >>>>>> >>>>> -- 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/-/W7qPex_UEGMJ. 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.
