I actually have some familiarity with BuddyPoke. Regarding static file serving failures: they're actually very low, but they are still higher than a traditional CDN provider's. Dave's entire application IS a Flash application, so if this doesn't serve, his application won't work. We're working to improve this, but we can understand that there are parts of his business needs that we can't meet yet.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Stephen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 12, 8:33 am, ryan > <[email protected]<ryanb%[email protected]>> > wrote: > > On Feb 11, 3:08 pm, phtq <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Looking at our error logs for the last 2 days, I would have to save > > > the situation is improved with the advent of 1.3.1, but certainly not > > > fixed. From the standpoint of our app., being forced to supply all our > > > mp3, png, etc. files out of the database enormously increases our > > > exposure to the timeout 'feature'. > > > > i definitely agree, serving static files from the datastore is far > > from optimal. the 1000 file limit is definitely something we're aware > > of and still actively thinking about, but i don't have any updates on > > that right now. > > > > http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/1/22/how-buddypoke-scales-on-facebook-using-google-app-engine.html > > Most of the cost of BuddyPoke is in content delivery. The > main app for BuddyPoke is a flash file must be served. These > costs are much higher than the costs for running the actual > application. Dave is investigating Rackspace for file serving. > GAE has a relatively high failure rate for accessing content, which > is acceptable when returning avatars, but is not OK for loading > up the initial image. > > ie. the failure rate for static file serving on App Engine is so high > that BuddyPoke has to use an expensive content delivery network to > serve it's flash app. :-( > > > > also, if they're static files, the blobstore api would be much more > > appropriate than the datastore. have you tried it? > > > Is the blobstore API faster/more-reliable than serving from the db/ > memcache? > > Obviously, if your files are > 1MB then the blobstore is your only > option. If you have a few static files then static file serving is an > option. But if you have dynamic files < 1MB there are now two > options: db/memcache or blobstore. Which is better, and why? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-appengine%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- Ikai Lan Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine http://googleappengine.blogspot.com | http://twitter.com/app_engine -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" 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?hl=en.
