I would be happy if they could page the heap of a quiet app to disk
instead in re-initialising. To read even 100MB from disc would take
less than a second... maybe another to send it across the network. A
delay on that scale wouldn't worry me.
On 19 Jan 2010, at 00:20, Paul Hammant wrote:
I suspect that Google can't price up the RAM in use by node.
Or at least given http://gregluck.com/blog/archives/2009/06/the-limitations-of-google-app-engine/
they can't do fine grained billing based on stack/heap usage.
I think they'd need to be able to do that before allowing us to keep
instances up for extended periods of time.
- Paul
On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Locke wrote:
"The dollar cost of apps being initialized more than they need to has
always concerned me though."
This is an important observation. Keeping our apps loaded with cron
or
other hacks is "discouraged," yet we are billed for far more CPU
usage
if we allow appengine to unload/reload our apps every few minutes.
Financially, keeping our apps loaded is actually encouraged.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Google App Engine for Java" 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-java?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine for Java" 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-java?hl=en.
