Re: [google-appengine] Re: Node.js Standard: memory usage different for locally and deployed version on 30 - 40 Mb.

2018-08-09 Thread Aleksander Efremov
I won't argue, it's enough for me. Thanks for helping. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Node.js Standard: memory usage different for locally and deployed version on 30 - 40 Mb.

2018-08-09 Thread 'George (Cloud Platform Support)' via Google App Engine
Hi Aleksander, We agree without doubt that in an ideal world reaching perfection is a realist target. Even in our real world, I am sure Developers would like to fine-tune all products to perfection, but in a real world time is an issue. There are serious issues to address and to fix, whose

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Node.js Standard: memory usage different for locally and deployed version on 30 - 40 Mb.

2018-08-08 Thread Александр Ефремов
Hi George. For me it's enough now, but exists such saying: there is no limit to perfection -:). I also made some optimizations therefore now I'm able to use most small instance. But if exists opportunity to improve that, of course would be still better. > 8 авг. 2018 г., в 22:41, 'George (Cloud

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Node.js Standard: memory usage different for locally and deployed version on 30 - 40 Mb.

2018-08-08 Thread 'George (Cloud Platform Support)' via Google App Engine
Hello Aleksander, Glad to read you find the solution working. Do you consider this solution as definitive? Would you like to see improvements? If so, what would the ideal solution mean for you? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine"

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Node.js Standard: memory usage different for locally and deployed version on 30 - 40 Mb.

2018-08-08 Thread Aleksander Efremov
Yes, it's better now, thanks. Before was difference from my PC and Cloud Platform about 20Mb, now 10Mb. On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 1:00:17 AM UTC+4, George (Cloud Platform Support) wrote: > > Hi Aleksander, > > The issue should be fixed by now; you are encouraged to test it again. > --

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Node.js Standard: memory usage different for locally and deployed version on 30 - 40 Mb.

2018-08-07 Thread 'George (Cloud Platform Support)' via Google App Engine
Hi Aleksander, The issue should be fixed by now; you are encouraged to test it again. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Node.js Standard: memory usage different for locally and deployed version on 30 - 40 Mb.

2018-06-26 Thread Aleksander Efremov
Hi George. That's ok. The main thing there is created issue. Thanks for helping. On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 1:14:21 AM UTC+4, George (Cloud Platform Support) wrote: > > Hello Aleksander, > > In fact there is no estimated time to resolution, but I am sure Developers > will address the issue as

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Node.js Standard: memory usage different for locally and deployed version on 30 - 40 Mb.

2018-06-24 Thread 'George (Cloud Platform Support)' via Google App Engine
Hello Aleksander, In fact there is no estimated time to resolution, but I am sure Developers will address the issue as soon as possible, taken into account their priorities. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Node.js Standard: memory usage different for locally and deployed version on 30 - 40 Mb.

2018-06-23 Thread Aleksander Efremov
Ok. Will hope that will successful resolved soon. вс, 24 июн. 2018 г., 0:59 'George (Cloud Platform Support)' via Google App Engine : > Your issue warrants a more in-depth investigation. To facilitate > communication and tracking of progress, we have opened this issue >