Jon, Thank you for the detailed response and taking the time to look at my specific application.
I'll take a look at the new billing statement in the morning (I'm central european time) and see what I can tell. On Sep 5, 10:49 pm, Jon McAlister <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi millisecond, I can illuminate some of the issues here. > > As Johan said, the bill will be based on active-instances [the orange > line] plus max-idle-instances. That is correct. > > I can see though how your 09-01 billing report is confusing though, I > can explain that. Also, I'm very sorry that the billing reports are > delayed so long, we're working on that. > > The billing reports are computed on the usage for the day, based on > Pacific Standard Time. In your case, the setting of > max-idle-instances=5 was made at 2011/09/01-04:28:41. So, it applied > to the remaining 19.5 hours of the day, but not to the initial 4.5 > hours for the day. This is why it didn't drop as low as expected (it > dropped from ~3000 instance-hours to 764 instance hours, but obviously > it should be going lower than that). But, we can figure out the > average billed instance rate for the latter 19.5 hours of the day by > solving for: > > 3000 / 24 * 4.5 + N * 19.5 = 764 > > Which is N=10.3. As such, I would expect the 09-02 billing report to > have ~250 instance hours. We'll see in a few hours if this is correct > or not. > > The number 10.3 seems correct though. Your active-instances rate graph > is a sawtooth graph with a trough of 3 and a peak of 13. So, the > average of that graph, plus 5, coming out to 10.3, looks correct to > me. > > I'll check back in on you once the 09-02 billing report comes out in a > few hours for you. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Johan Euphrosine <[email protected]> wrote: > > The Max Idle instances slider help text states: > > > *You will not be charged for instances over the specified maximum* > > > So if you are, it is a billing bug and you should ask a refund. > > > Feel free to a production issue with your application id if you want > > us to track the instance inconsistencies for your application: > >http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/entry?template=Produc... > > > I would also suggest to fill a feature request for faster billing > > preview/reporting: > >http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/entry?template=Featur... > > > Hope that helps. > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Millisecond <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree that we shouldn't be, it just seems that we are. > > >> I'll just have to wait for more days to show up in Billing History > >> where I have screenshots of the dashboard available to compare > >> against. > > >> Frustrating to have to wait 5 days to see what something is going to > >> be billed at. We have basically 2 cycles to make changes and see the > >> effects before billing goes into effect and the two things biting us > >> are instance-hours and datastore writes. One is totally opaque and > >> the other appears to be inconsistently reported in the live graphs > >> (right now I have "20 Total" in text, 35 total / 12 active in the > >> graph). > > >> On Sep 5, 3:40 pm, Johan Euphrosine <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> You should never be charged for more than: Active Instance + Max Idle > >>> instances, even if the scheduler keeps more than Max Idle instances > >>> around. > > >>> Setting Min-Pending-Latency to 60ms instruct the scheduler to wait at > >>> least 60ms if all the instances are busy before deciding to spawn a > >>> new instance for handling an incoming request. > > >>> You can maximize existing instance usage over new instance creation by > >>> increasing that value, but this could come at the expense of > >>> increasing request latency. > > >>> Hope that helps. > > >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Millisecond <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > It looks like we are being charged at the higher rate of 30-35 > >>> > instance hours / hour even though only ~10 are active at a time and > >>> > max-idle is set to 5. Although it's still hard to tell as we're > >>> > behind ~5 days in billing history summaries. > > >>> > Is the current scheduler going to be changed before new-billing is > >>> > implemented? Seems like a must. > > >>> > On Sep 1, 4:48 pm, Millisecond <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> The table at the top of the dashboard is showing 23 active instances, > >>> >> QPS of 2.6 and a latency of 481ms. Which makes some sense as I'm > >>> >> hovering between 40 and 80 QPS overall. > > >>> >> I've set the scheduler to have max 5 idle instances and the min > >>> >> latency to 60ms, but when I pull down the graph to the "Instances" > >>> >> display, it has me hovering between ~5 and ~12 active and 30-35 > >>> >> total. > > >>> >> Is the graph just not accurate and we're billed for what's in the text > >>> >> area? Are we charged for active instances or total instances or > >>> >> instances in the text area? Why isn't it more-or-less "active + 5 as > >>> >> max = total"? > > >>> >> With a 3-4 day delay on my billing history reporting, this is going to > >>> >> be very hard to tweak if I can't see correct numbers on the dashboard. > > >>> > -- > >>> > 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 > >>> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > >>> -- > >>> Johan Euphrosine (proppy) > >>> Developer Programs Engineer > >>> Google Developer Relations > > >> -- > >> 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 > >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > > -- > > Johan Euphrosine (proppy) > > Developer Programs Engineer > > Google Developer Relations > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. -- 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.
