I just wanted to add that being greedy is not necessarily a 'bad' thing for
businesses seen from a larger perspective, because a company who is very
greedy opens up opportunities for other companies! So almost paradoxically,
being greedy can be a generous thing. But when it comes to Google App
I think Google will provide a reasonably fair pricing model. I heard about
how Groupon takes 50% of the money and pay their business partners with a 90
days delay. That sounds disgustingly greedy to me. And the person who
mentioned that then said that Google has a similar service where they
Hi Gijsbert, both of these are indeed still accurate.
Greg
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Gijsbert gijsbert.de.h...@gmail.com wrote:
Greg, can you confirm if a channel in the new pricing scheme is still
available for 2 hours and can be reused for multiple clients (as long
as they don't
You say that the new Channel API rates is what users pay today.
First of all, in the original model you get over 8,000 free channels a
day to 100/day in the new model.
And please tell me if 1000's of users are exchanging messages on
individual channels, does that mean that there will be have to
Greg, can you confirm if a channel in the new pricing scheme is still
available for 2 hours and can be reused for multiple clients (as long
as they don't overlap in time)?
On Jul 3, 1:39 pm, ksafez216 mell...@gmail.com wrote:
You say that the new Channel API rates is what users pay today.
@Nickolas Daskalou +1
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Nickolas Daskalou n...@daskalou.com wrote:
Hi Greg,
Yet another 2nd 'next week' ending has come and gone (for those playing at
home, that makes 4 weeks).
The application we had been working on has been halted in light of the new
pricing
Hi Grant, it was indeed coherent! Under the new model if you get a Premier
Account you'll be able to consolidate all of these apps under that account.
We assumed a number of people would be in this situation.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Grant grant.klop...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I
Hi
I have a question about migration of existing apps into the new pricing
structure...
We have numerous (50+) apps running across 3 different apps for domains
(appspot.com + 2 of our own). Although we have our own apps for domains, all
apps have an *.appspot.com url.
This came about as we
@Nickolas Daskalou + 1
except for the part of free quotas.
You need those in order to attract developers to try out the platform
and build up the eco system.
Without a strong healthy ecosystem no platform can survive for long.
Still there are other solutions to this (i.e. limit to 1 year or less
@Nickolas Daskalou + 1
On Jun 19, 12:09 pm, Nickolas Daskalou n...@daskalou.com wrote:
Hi Greg,
Yet another 2nd 'next week' ending has come and gone (for those playing at
home, that makes 4 weeks).
The application we had been working on has been halted in light of the new
pricing
Hi Greg,
Yet another 2nd 'next week' ending has come and gone (for those playing at
home, that makes 4 weeks).
The application we had been working on has been halted in light of the new
pricing announcement, and we have been waiting for some good news for a
while now. Is there any update you can
Hi Greg,
I think the new pricing is fair and we as Google developers will also like
to see App Engine sustainable.
One particular note about the Email XMPP API pricing. Which I think is a
little bit steep.
Will Google consider to give more allowance to email quota/pricing sending
from
The email pricing is very competitive actually. And pretty much in
line with Amazon SES. What I would like to know is if Google has any
plans to improve mail delivery rate. For instance there are many
threads in here about yahoo flagging gae mail as spam along with
others. The reply was
Suppose an app takes 10ms to produce a 50k response. The response might be
for a mobile client, with slow connection, and take 1s to transfer.
Is the instance tied up for the whole 1s, or is the instance tied only for
10ms, and then there is some independent buffering that takes care of
On Jun 8, 12:12 pm, Luca luca.de.alf...@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose an app takes 10ms to produce a 50k response. The response might be
for a mobile client, with slow connection, and take 1s to transfer.
Is the instance tied up for the whole 1s, or is the instance tied only for
10ms, and then
Sorry it has taken so long, but we are still working on clarifying some of
these areas internally, I will send an update soon, thanks for your
patience...
Greg
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Vanni Totaro vanni.tot...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Greg,
2nd next week ending :)
Any update for us?
Greg D wrote a while ago:
I know I haven't been responding in this thread a lot but I've been reading
what everyone is saying and working with the team here to map out some of the
details in light of this. I'll post next week with another update on the
additional aspects that are finalized
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Sergey Schetinin ser...@maluke.com wrote:
Greg D wrote a while ago:
I know I haven't been responding in this thread a lot but I've been
reading what everyone is saying and working with the team here to map out
some of the details in light of this. I'll post
On 2 June 2011 16:01, Vinuth Madinur vinuth.madi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Sergey Schetinin ser...@maluke.com wrote:
Greg D wrote a while ago:
I know I haven't been responding in this thread a lot but I've been
reading what everyone is saying and working with the
Hi Greg,
2nd next week ending :)
Any update for us?
Regards,
Vanni
--
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/-/alFhQ1RKWE1NWWtK.
To post to
This change penalizes spiky apps in a huge way.
Three years ago, when we first started with GAE, we did so for three
reasons: 1) scalability 2) pay for what you use model, and 3)
SIMPLICITY.
Our app is very spiky - a single user will at times generate 50+
concurrent requests that need to be
Jan,
I hope the GAE team corrects me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't worry too
much in your case, especially if you've tuned the requests to consume
minimal CPU.
The way things are right now, if each of your requests takes 50ms, (of
which 10ms is actual CPU and the rest is waiting) then one GAE
Hello Greg,
For all of those interested in the future of Python on App Engine, there has
been a thread started on this topic. See here:
http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/python-forum.html?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine-python%2F85EcIif5vNQ%2Fdiscussion
This is mainly python specific, but
Do you think it would be beneficial to use Google
Moderatorhttp://www.google.com/moderator/for this?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
Can we still expect a follow up on how always on will work?
On May 18, 10:55 am, Gregory D'alesandre gr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:57 AM, 风笑雪 kea...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Greg,
Can you raise On-demand Frontend Instances free quota to 25 Instance Hours
per day?
The
I see the new pricing as very positive. It would get rid of spamming apps
which consume the resources of the
ordinary apps with this 9$ barrier. For some apps prices would actually go
down and once the multhreaded
python runtime is ready the price difference would be very minimal because
Python
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, moxa georgi.stefa...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... a number of other comments ... ]
Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions in those comments.
As for requests that have latency more than 1s these should be optimized or
put in the backend because
they destroy
I'd be more optimistic if the multithreaded Python runtime was ready for
production and there was a clear upgrade path for existing apps. Until then
the price difference is anything but minimal.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine
Could you explicit how the 15 minutes idle time before tear-down has been
calculated ?
How about making this idle time configurable in the scheduler, and billing
instance start-up instead ?
I've seen a lot of discussion around that matter, but it doesn't appear in
the FAQ.
--
You received
There is another thread with the title: Is MapReduce still a flexible
solution on AppEngine under the new pricing model?The 15 minutes
minimum would make map/reduce too expensive, am I missing something? I
would be very welcome if somebody responds to the thread and also
cover MapReduce in
What is being asked for is an intermediate pricing, where there is no SLA,
but apps can slightly exceed their free quotas(to some degree) in terms of
instance hours, storage, etc., without a $9 minimum.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Greg g.fawc...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that many
Here's a suggestion GAE guys - how about the $9 minimum is per ACCOUNT
rather than per APP.
Me - I've only got the one app, but for people who say I've got 8 apps, any
one of which might just break the quota any month, but only by 50c or so
then this would ease their burden a bit - $9 a month
Are frontend instances paid per instance hour with or without 15 minutes
charge for instance startup ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe
Please googlers,
1- Everybody wants (and got used to) to be worry free of trafic spikes.
Figure out a way to charge $.50 for $.50 worth of resource consumption, not
9$ for .50$ worth of consumption, even if it means paying one off
entrance fee. i.e. $30 setup fee for 30$ worth of resources
Even if I think that the monthly fee should be removed (or be a lot
cheaper), a fee per ACCOUNT is much better.
If a dev has 10 small app, it will cost : $9 * 12 * 10 = $1080 just
for the monthly fee.
Currently this dev paies only less than $50 (only for few GB for
example).
On 20 mai, 10:43,
Why not host these 10 small apps under one app Id.
Make a startpage with icons for each of your creations. It it easier for
your users to select one, and in case if one of the apps goes big, then move
it to its own domain. It is cheaper for you and for google.
Wendel
--
You received this
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the detailed response. It removes a lot of the uncertainty,
allowing us focus on actual concerns.
My main concerns now are:
- prohibitive cost of backend instance
- 15 minutes idle time cost for frontend instances
- details on what experimental entails, with respect to GO
@Ugorji
Shutting down an instance after 1 minute of inactivity would be bad
for java apps which usually take 5+ seconds to start up. The
scheduler will probably take into account a bunch of different
variables in determining how long to leave an instance running.
On May 20, 11:52 am, Ugorji
It seems that the inefficient use of instances is the biggest price
hit for anyone who scales beyond minimal levels...and that Go could
help a lot, even without multithreading. I'm no Go expert but Erlang,
for example, can handle a huge number of concurrent requests with a
single OS thread, and Go
Go instances cannot currently handle more than one request at a time, though
within a request you can use goroutines. Concurrent requests is something
that is likely coming. We're not providing a roadmap at this time, but that
team does read the go mailing list, so make sure your thoughts are
I know I haven't been responding in this thread a lot but I've been reading
what everyone is saying and working with the team here to map out some of
the details in light of this. I'll post next week with another update on
the additional aspects that are finalized enough to discuss.
Thanks again
Regarding the new backends feature, I think its not only expensive, but very
inefficient. With the same cost we could rent a decent machine which does
unlimited thing and handle thousands of request per second with web server
like Tornado. AppEngine backend instance can only handle one
I know it's typical for people to say that java apps usually take a long
time to start. IMO, the overhead of the JVM in startup is usually in the
milliseconds range. Jetty barebones starts up in the milliseconds range. My
app consistently starts up in less than 1 second, and it does a fair
Amount of concurrency / instance is critical for deciding whether to
use AppEngine as a platform.
Although AppEngine has it's disadvantages (vendor lock-in, restricted
architecture, etc),
the key reason to choose AppEngine is scalability.
The datastore scales.
Now we need to focus the other
Q: What is the time granularity of the instance pricing? ie if I
have an
instance up for 5 minutes, what am I charged, $0.08 / 60*5?
A: Instances are charged for their uptime and until they are idle for
15
minutes (when the scheduler takes them down). So if you have an on-
demand
Instance only
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
Put some ads on it and it should get to the $9 a month. Put a donate button
on it.
It's never that simple, and certainly isn't in this case.
That said, Google certainly doesn't owe anyone a free service layer,
nor a
: FAQ for out of preview pricing changes
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
Put some ads on it and it should get to the $9 a month. Put a donate
button on it.
It's never that simple, and certainly isn't in this case.
That said, Google certainly doesn't
-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:10 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview pricing changes
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Brandon Wirtz
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:47 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview pricing changes
You presume that my app has a web front end. Most of the users
and yours.
-Original Message-
From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:10 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview
Greg,
Stressing a point made here by Mike Wesner: is the memory limit on
(frontend) instances being cut down to 128mb? As far as I know, there
was no formal documentation of an instance's memory limit before, but
the soft limit error was usually triggered at around 180mb. Should
be expect this
Schnitzer
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:10 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview pricing changes
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
Put some ads on it and it should get to the $9 a month
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview pricing changes
You presume that my app has a web front end. Most of the users of this
particular app are iPhone clients, and the developer responsible for that
code has moved on to other projects.
...and actually, there does
Message-
From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:10 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview pricing
changes
] On Behalf Of Jeff
Schnitzer
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:10 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview pricing
changes
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com
wrote:
Put some ads
-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview pricing
changes
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com
wrote:
Put some ads on it and it should get to the $9 a month. Put a donate
button on it.
It's never that simple, and certainly isn't in this case
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
For $9 who would you run instead? How much hosting would that buy you at
DreamHost? Or Amazon Or Rackspace. Same question at $50, and $500
At Amazon, $500 would buy $500 worth of hosting, $50 would buy $50
worth of
Agreed.
Why should I pay for idle time, if it's idle?
That *does not make any sense*!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group,
One reason is, its there ready to serve a new request.
If there is no instance running, one will have to be spun up, adding
(possibly significant) delay to the next request.
With 15 minutes Google appear to be offering a compromise. It's
probably not totally arbitrary number, but based on
You are using it because the instance is consuming memory. I think the idle
time should become lesser compared to the number instances.
1 (primary) 15 minutes idle or always up.
2 (secondary instances) 5 minutes or less.
Also if the scheduler starts a secondary instance which during its
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Barry Hunter barrybhun...@gmail.com wrote:
With 15 minutes Google appear to be offering a compromise.
This is the problem: they haven't fixed anything they've merely
shifted the burden by compromising.
Under the current scheme, as Greg explained, full-fat Java
Well yes, they have shifted the 'burden' but I see it in a different way.
The 'old' way, pretty much promoted low cpu use, even if that came at
the expense of latency. The slow requests, would necessitate lots of
instances - costing Google.
The 'new' way promotes keeping your latency down. Quick
As a non Google person and someone was pretty shocked about the price
changes I have to say you're over-reacting.
If your application has a average latency of 250ms (which is quite high
imho) you can get 345,600 hits per day on the free tier, apparently forever.
If you're getting that kind of
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Kenneth kennet...@aladdinschools.comwrote:
As a non Google person and someone was pretty shocked about the price
changes I have to say you're over-reacting.
If your application has a average latency of 250ms (which is quite high
imho) you can get 345,600 hits
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Barry Hunter barrybhun...@gmail.com wrote:
Well yes, they have shifted the 'burden' but I see it in a different way.
The 'old' way, pretty much promoted low cpu use, even if that came at
the expense of latency. The slow requests, would necessitate lots of
On 19 May 2011 17:31, Stephen sdeasey+gro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Barry Hunter barrybhun...@gmail.com wrote:
Well yes, they have shifted the 'burden' but I see it in a different way.
The 'old' way, pretty much promoted low cpu use, even if that came at
the expense
As far as I know the Blobstore has never been available to free apps and now
they're giving you 5gigs free, seems like a pretty big win to me.
The 50k free database operations is a bit more nebulous since Google are
still scratching their heads over it. With correct memcache usage it really
SLA + Infinitely scalable is what comes to mind.
It is not free, the ones who use a paid account have to cover the costs of
the free ones as well. It is how their and AWS business model works.
So if you want more for free, then the billing prices go up, not a good
idea..and not fair.
--
You
The 50k free database operations is a bit more nebulous since Google are
still scratching their heads over it. With correct memcache usage it really
should be enough, although that might be a bit of wishful thinking and
obviously depends significantly on your use case.
As reference.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Barry Hunter barrybhun...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 May 2011 17:31, Stephen sdeasey+gro...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the way it currently works is if your apps latency 1000ms
(figures of 800-900ms have also been mentioned) it won't scale. The
lower the latency the
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Kenneth kennet...@aladdinschools.comwrote:
As far as I know the Blobstore has never been available to free apps and
now they're giving you 5gigs free, seems like a pretty big win to me.
They have had 2GB for free. You only had to enable billing.
For
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
There is a terrific amount of price signaling going on in this change.
It indicates that:
* Memory is precious, CPU time is almost irrelevant.
This is not too surprising; if you look at the rest of the cloud
To be clear, the 10GB of charity storage is only valid for the first 12
months for new customers.
http://aws.amazon.com/free/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
To post to this group, send email to
Thanks, Brandon, this is great info!
This plus Stephen's info shows how to get scalability without concurrency:
No, the way it currently works is if your apps latency 1000ms
(figures of 800-900ms have also been mentioned) it won't scale. The
lower the latency the more they scale it. So the
Yeah, the people building small-scale apps shouldn't worry about the
instance quota. They should worry about the datastore operations quota.
If, on average, every request queries for 10 entities... your app is limited
to 5,000 requests per day. That's 3-4 requests per minute. Not much. And
if
Q: how big is AppEngine?
A: 4 x tumblr.com:
GAE reached 1 billion page views at the end of last year:
http://www.onebigfluke.com/2010/12/nuff-said.html
and tumblr.com reached 250 M page views this month:
http://staff.tumblr.com/post/5578802048/whoa-yesterday-we-jumped-past-250m-pageviews-a
It still works out much cheaper than appengine.
10GB on AWS would cost: $1
on appengine: $9.85 (which would get 98.5GB on AWS.)
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Calvin calvin.r...@gmail.com wrote:
To be clear, the 10GB of charity storage is only valid for the first 12
months for new
yes, it's a google interview question ... for google! ;-)
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Dennis dennisf...@gmail.com wrote:
Q: how big is AppEngine?
A: 4 x tumblr.com:
GAE reached 1 billion page views at the end of last year:
http://www.onebigfluke.com/2010/12/nuff-said.html
and
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Stephen sdeasey+gro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
This is not too surprising; if you look at the rest of the cloud
industry, almost all services are priced by the amount of RAM used and
make no
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Stephen sdeasey+gro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
This is not too surprising; if you look at the rest of the cloud
But how much would it cost to have multiple EC2 instances serving the
content along with S3 hosting the content? A single micro instance running
for a month would be $14.
So what you could do is host static content in S3 and host the app in App
Engine and save both ways.
--
You received
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview pricing changes
But how much would it cost to have multiple EC2 instances serving the
content along with S3 hosting the content? A single micro instance running
for a month would be $14.
So what you
On Thursday, 19 May 2011 19:42:17 UTC+1, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
Yeah, the people building small-scale apps shouldn't worry about the
instance quota. They should worry about the datastore operations quota.
Yeah - I'm writing a one-page-webapp (that incidentally rocks on Google
Chrome and
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Calvin calvin.r...@gmail.com wrote:
But how much would it cost to have multiple EC2 instances serving the
content along with S3 hosting the content? A single micro instance running
for a month would be $14.
So what you could do is host static content in S3
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Stephen sdeasey+gro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Jeff Schnitzer j...@infohazard.org wrote:
http://www.linode.com/index.cfm
http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/cloud_hosting_products/servers/pricing/
http://www.slicehost.com/
@Jeff
I would question any comparisons that ends like If you’re going to
buy a VPS I’d appreciate it if you used my referral page for Linode or
for Slicehost when doing so.
I would prefer a donate button and most probably I would contribute.
Nick Milon
On May 19, 9:55 pm, Jeff Schnitzer
I've never expected it to be a 'charity'. The first time I looked at GAE in
2008, it had a price tag.
Here is my experience:
1. I looked at GAE and AWS, GAE won hands down because of its lower price
and zero system administrative overhead.
2. I put my business on it seriously.
3. In this three
Lots of talk and fighting here with developers comparing App Engine vs
AWS vs Rackspace vs any_other_VPS_service_on_earth.
There was not such big talk before, coz App Engine looked different
from those products both in terms of pricing as well as features.
Now, thanks to latest news, it managed to
If you're worried about his objectivity, it's worth noting that
Slicehost performed very poorly - worse than EC2 in most tests. Most
likely, he mentions the referral page for Linode and Slicehost because
they are the only providers that offer an affiliate program.
In the absence of any reason to
@Jeff
No bad intentions neither for his objectivity nor your findings.
I just wanted to say that product - comparison publications should not
depend on products/services compared for an income, it is a matter of
principle.
I would be grateful if you could possibly share your own tests
Nick
On
250ms / request means you get MAX 4 request/seconds once it shift to
instance based pricing. Thats what 1 instance can serve. Your per day
concept only applies to CPU based pricing (the current model)
A single entity db.get + db.put can cost you more than 250ms sometimes.
Many people in this
It seems to me that many people are losing sight of the fact that
there will still be a free tier.
So our proverbial web developer can tinker around with her app for as
long as she wants, at no cost. Once SHE decides to, she can avail
herself of scalability and an SLA for $9 a month, which seems
I think you're missing out on the bigger picture, which is that:
1) High-level decisionmakers inside Google are reading this thread.
2) Early input has greater potential influence than later input,
especially after a ton of billing code has been written and the
momentum of a big ship like Google
I should say one thing more - I've already had to migrate one service
off of Backends (formerly servers) to a VPS host because the
finalized pricing (not hypothetical - what you pay right now) is more
than six times what it costs elsewhere. The risk of being priced off
GAE is real.
Jeff
On Thu,
Greg,
Great job with the FAQ... I think it clarifies things a lot, and is
quite will written.
I'm still not clear on some points, though.
If I do db.get([key1, key2]), and two entities were fetched, how many
'operations' have I consumed?
If key2 didn't exist and only one entity was fetched,
Greg,
Thanks for the FAQ. A follow-up question: will datastore queries be
priced only according to the number of entities fetched/saved or will
entity size also come into play?
Thanks,
H.E.
On May 18, 7:49 am, Gregory D'alesandre gr...@google.com wrote:
Hello All!
As you've likely heard,
To: Google App Engine
Subject: [google-appengine] Re: FAQ for out of preview pricing changes
Greg,
Great job with the FAQ... I think it clarifies things a lot, and is quite
will written.
I'm still not clear on some points, though.
If I do db.get([key1, key2]), and two entities were fetched, how
Thank you for this FAQ,
But : [...] will still have to spend $9/month in order to scale but
you won’t pay an additional $9 for your first $9 worth of usage each
month.[...]
So with this change : an app thats use 1GB above the free quota will
pay $9/month (and not $9,15) ?
Currently, this app
Are frontend instances paid per instance hour with or without 15 minutes
charge for statup ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this
Q: Will there be a solution for Python concurrency? Will this require any
code changes?
Python concurrency will be handled by our release of Python 2.7 on App
Engine. We’ve heard a lot of feedback from our Python users who are worried
that the incentive is to move to Java because of
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
