Google App Engine 1.5.0 released(googleappengine.blogspot.com)

84 pointsby mattrjacobs15 anni fa19 comments

googleappengine.blogspot.com

http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/app-engine-150-release.html

6 comments

Many people seem to be complaining about the shift from CPU-hour to instance-hour pricing. They don't seem to get that it's more or less the same thing: dynamic instances can handle "a small number" of concurrent requests.

So the GAE team has set the incentives correctly, to reward apps that work well with concurrency.

The current free quota is 6.5 CPU hours, and the upcoming free quota seems to be 24 instance hours. I know which I prefer.

timmorgan15 anni fa

"We have added a few restrictions to the Mail API to improve the reliability and reputation of the service for all applications. First, emails must be sent from email accounts managed by Google (either Gmail, or a domain signed up for Google Apps). Second, we’ve reduced the number of free recipients per day from 2000 to 100 for newly created applications."

Probably good news for SendGrid.

[deleted]15 anni fa

(1)

dillona15 anni fa

I've been looking at getting into Go programming.

This could be a cool opportunity to do so. Does anyone have any resources for writing Go webapps?

uriel15 anni fa

Rob Pike is giving (or has given already?) a talk on writing web apps in Go at Google I/O today, it is not livecasted, but the video should be up tomorrow.

rbanffy15 anni fa

I really wish Google would set up all its presentations as one or more podcasts. I know it's unlikely, but one can dream.

borism15 anni fa

probably http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/go/overview.html ?

[deleted]15 anni fa

nickmilon15 anni fa

New App Engine Pricing policy, the good the bad and the ugly. http://gaengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-app-engine-pricing-...

gte910h15 anni fa

The constant instances seem like a bid to take over the heroku type space.

fletchowns15 anni fa

There were a lot of complaints from people that had infrequently used (new) web apps, and so there would be a substantial delay to spin up an instance when the app did get hit. This makes your site seem "slow" even though it really isn't, which is a big problem if you are trying to build some momentum, or show off your site to potential investors. People were resorting to some less than ideal ways for keeping their instances warm, more information on the app engine for java group: http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=24...

bemmu15 anni fa

I believe you can use a feature called "Always On" to avoid the cold start problem. I noticed such an option in my billing settings for $0.30 / day.

gte910h15 anni fa

The always on feature in december fixed half the issue (cold start)

This fixed the other half (long running processes).

gte910h15 anni fa

Oh I've used some of the "less than ideal" things during demos before. It truly was an underserved need within the ecosystem.

uriel15 anni fa

That is only a problem for Java apps (and for Python apps using things like Django that were never really suited to AppEngine).

None of my AppEngine apps ever had any problem with 'cold' startup speed, and now with Go startup speed will be even less of an issue.

chrisfarms15 anni fa

Backends are not primarily intended for user-facing traffic

I believe they are more like Tasks on Steroids than a way of having something like a little persistant VPS for your app.

evangineer15 anni fa

I take it that you're talking about the new Backends:

Backends are special App Engine instances that have no request deadlines, higher memory and CPU limits, and persistent state across requests. They are started automatically by App Engine and can run continously for long periods. Each backend instance has a unique URL to use for requests, and you can load-balance requests across multiple instances.

codesink15 anni fa

Backends seem overpriced to me; their default backend is a long-lasting process running at 1.2Ghz allowed to use 256MB of RAM and it's priced $0.16/hour ($115/month).

They can shutdown/restart/relocate your backend whenever they want so what they suggest to keep your service live is "Configuring more backend instances than are normally required to handle your traffic patterns" (yeah that's at least another $115/month fee).

sorenbs15 anni fa

At linode that kind of money will give you 4G of ram, cpu power in the same ball park and loads of storage and transfer. It seems that Backends - and the GAE in general - makes most sense when you view the system as a whole, and work with systems of a certain size. Tasks goes in to queues and backends are started and stopped as needed - stuff like that. If all you need is to serve a long running process, linode and the like is more economical.

gte910h15 anni fa

If you're actually using them as a backend, I'm not sure you couldn't start them up and shut them down.

But yes, they are expensive.