On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Vinuth Madinur <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I guess the differences are as follows: > > 1. With instance hours the focus is not on optimizing RAM consumption at > all, but on reducing latency (increasing RAM consumption, reducing costs) > and controlling when instances come up and go. > 2. With RAM-hours pricing, idle instances would cost lesser as CPU-hours > are not charged. > 3. The pricing would be linear and pay-for-what-you-use: amount of RAM for > the time used. Not a fixed instance type with some amount of RAM. > > So, it is "flipping the ecosystem on its head". > IANG (I am not Greg/Google), but I think the lesson here (and reinforced by the price model of most if the industry) is that hosting providers are limited by RAM, not by CPU. Your argument presumes that idle instances would actually cost less than active instances. There's probably a ton of unused CPU capacity in the cluster, so there's no real "cost" associated with providing it and no point in charging for it. I would hate to see the extra complexity of CPU hours + RAM hours. Keep it simple. Jeff -- 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.
