Someone is not sharing their unicorns. :( On Thursday, December 27, 2012 11:32:01 AM UTC-8, Cesium wrote: > > FYI, my app is cruising along just fine with one instance that has been > alive for 2 days. > > I feel your pain, brother. > > David > > On Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:12:27 PM UTC-7, Carl Schroeder wrote: >> >> Also FYI, this whole issue could be resolved if you would stop sending >> user facing requests to cold uninitialized instances in java GAE. Handling >> user requests in ways that you know will cause 20+ second response times is >> pathological. >> >> All new development for us on GAE is blocked until this issue can be >> resolved. >> >> On Thursday, December 27, 2012 11:01:30 AM UTC-8, Carl Schroeder wrote: >>> >>> I am still seeing java instances decomissioned after sub minute quiet >>> periods. Given that it takes 20-30 seconds to spin one java instance up, >>> you should probably leave them alive for a bit longer than a few seconds. >>> Otherwise, for low traffic profiles, page loads for GAE java can take up to >>> 30 seconds. God help us if the scheduler thinks I need 2 new instances spun >>> up in series rather than parallel. >>> >>> FYI, people don't wait around for a minute for pages to load. They use >>> other services. >>> >>> Once again, due to unannounced pathological behavior of the instancing >>> on GAE, we are wasting our time re-implementing our java infrastructure on >>> AWS. At least, I hope it is a waste of our time... >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 4:00:26 PM UTC-8, Francois Masurel wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Saket, >>>> >>>> Thanx for investigating the problem. >>>> >>>> Things seems to have improved significantly these last few days. >>>> >>>> On our Neustar reports, for an average page loading, we can see that we >>>> went from >>>> 6.65s<https://monitor.wpm.neustar.biz/reports/graph_log/#/?monitorIds=8bc3b100-b372-11e1-a749-9848e1660ab3&timeRange=last_24_hours&functionType=loadtime&graphType=line_chart&view=loadtime> >>>> (12/16) >>>> to 8.94s (12/18) and back to >>>> 2.57s<https://monitor.wpm.neustar.biz/reports/graph_log/#/?monitorIds=8bc3b100-b372-11e1-a749-9848e1660ab3&timeRange=last_24_hours&functionType=loadtime&graphType=line_chart&view=loadtime> >>>> (12/23). >>>> >>>> I can confirm that we don't see as much instance warm ups in our logs >>>> as we were used before, we went from every 3-4 minutes to 20-25 minutes. >>>> >>>> I definitely think things have changed on Google side as we haven't >>>> changed anything on our side. >>>> >>>> But some strange things are still going on at the moment (12/26 0:52 >>>> UTC+1) as a dynamic instance has been up for more than 4 hours but has >>>> served only one request (cf. screenshot below). >>>> >>>> Thanx again Saket for your help. >>>> >>>> François >>>> >>>> >>>> <https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ARDAA2Yu-NY/UNo-Bgn9SpI/AAAAAAAAyN8/NNC4QLzi93g/s1600/Instances+-+VinoCities+-+Google+Chrome.jpg> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, December 24, 2012 11:54:48 PM UTC+1, Saket Kumar wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Francois, >>>>> >>>>> Are you still facing this issue? I did a small test for your >>>>> application and didn't find anything too bad from scheduler's >>>>> perspective. >>>>> I'm trying to understand if it was a temporary glitch that was causing >>>>> the >>>>> issue or something is wrong with scheduler's algorithm. Or if scheduler >>>>> doesn't spin instances properly if QPS is low. >>>>> >>>>> Here is series of events- >>>>> >>>>> a.) Single resident was serving for 1 day, 03:26:37 minutes, serving >>>>> 9600 request >>>>> b.) After serving 96 requests with raised QPS, new instance was >>>>> created. >>>>> c.) QPS lowered and the new instance was allowed to die. >>>>> d.) Again the QPS was increased and new instance was created. Both >>>>> instances were handling requests at this point. >>>>> e.) QPS lowered again, newly formed instance dies and older instance >>>>> starts serving 100% of the requests. >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> Saket >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, 22 December 2012 12:18:00 UTC+1, Francois Masurel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Christina, >>>>>> >>>>>> For my personal case, my production app-id is "vncts1" with billing >>>>>> enabled. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the related issue is : >>>>>> https://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=7865 >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said at the beginning of this thread, there are quite a few >>>>>> other threads related to this problem : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/google-appengine/cJcOrOE4JDc/uKFBbylFOxIJ >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/8KiXRP-oU5I/Jf5kzcvyIiwJ >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/NR_oV4znvks/KtkSmVQD2IgJ >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/_znmrJwFMuM/V2epYOQ19L4J >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/hg3BH8WOGWA/discussion >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/UN5oCWkPsaA/discussion >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/RneC9qDbeRE/discussion >>>>>> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/sLZcZoK-A3Y/discussion >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanx for you help. >>>>>> >>>>>> François >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2012 3:15:05 AM UTC+1, Christina Ilvento >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would you mind sending app-ids that you're seeing this behavior for? >>>>>>> Please feel free to send them to me directly or to link any issues you >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> filed in our issue tracker so that we can investigate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Christina >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Carl Schroeder < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've been sacrificing unicorns to dark powers...clearly I have been >>>>>>>> doing it wrong. >>>>>>>> That probably explains some unusual behavior in other parts of my >>>>>>>> app. >>>>>>>> AFK pentagrams. :( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:51:35 PM UTC-8, Cesium wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ready for this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, a single instance survives for hours and hours, happily >>>>>>>>> serving requests with the usual low latency response time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is just what Sir Brandon wrote about. Mysterious changes in >>>>>>>>> the system's behavior. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I should note that I sprinkled rainbow Skittles across the floor >>>>>>>>> to attract the unicorns. They're back! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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/-/MFdFH0ZqWbgJ. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christina Ilvento | Google App Engine | [email protected] | >>>>>>> (650)-201-9399 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
-- 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/-/g-XCFMNJHRwJ. 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.
