--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/U8nQaYwxQr8J.
To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
Service and Resource | Unit | Cost Breakout | Cost |
---|---|---|---|
Amazon EC2 t1.micro instance | 1 | $0.02/hr * 24 hours * 30 days | $14.40 |
Elastic Load Balancer | 1 | $0.025/hr * 24 hours * 30 days | $18.00 |
Elastic Load Balancer Data Processing | 15GB | $0.008/GB * 15GB | $ 0.12 |
Elastic Block Store volume | 8GB | $0.10/GB * 8GB | $ 0.80 |
S3 Storage for WAR File and Access | 1GB | $0.14/1GB + $0.01 for<1k PUTs, <10k GETs | $ 0.15 |
Bandwidth In and Out | 15GB | Inbound is free, 15 GB out * $0.12 | $ 1.80 |
Total Monthly Cost without Free Tier | $35.27 | ||
Total Monthly Cost with Free Tier | $0 |
There's some significant value-add for GAE's "whole package" -
automatic scaling, memcache, edge caching, deployment system, API
access (although these APIs are generally charged separately). This
makes the $60/mo for a basic (multithreaded) instance worthwhile.
It's expensive but it's convenient, and most frontend work fits fine
in the F1. Also it's a little bit of apples/oranges because the GAE #
is heap whereas an Amazon # is VM size, but this is probably less than
a factor of 2 difference.
On the other hand, there are many application components whose primary
requirement is a significant chunk of RAM. All that Google
infrastructure is nice but it isn't nice enough to warrant a 10X
premium just for a measly 1G of RAM. And you can't even get more.
Seriously, a cheap amazon "standard" instance has significantly more
RAM than the most expensive GAE instance... lame.
Consequently, backends are useful as a long-running frontend, but
absolutely useless as an in-memory index. We're priced into going the
inconvenient route of placing memory indexes in other cloud services.
I've been generally accepting of GAE's recent pricing changes, but the
price of large-memory instances basically means I have to treat that
option as if it doesn't exist. Which means when Google adds all these
fancy features to support different kinds of instances, from my
perspective, they're wasting their time. I can't use them until they
make them cheaper.
So here's my plea: a 256MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
128MB instance, and a 512MB instance shouldn't cost twice as much as a
256MB instance. The price curve should drop off. There's a
reasonable premium to pay for running on GAE, but a factor of 10 isn't
it.
Just for comparison... the largest GAE backend, at 1G, costs $460/mo.
A 1.5G linode instance costs $60/mo. And I can get a 4G linode
instance for $160/mo. And while it's not exactly an apples/apples
comparison, when I need RAM, the priority of all those other Google
niceties goes down considerably. And if I needed (say) four 1G
backends, you can absolutely bet that I will go with Linode and pocket
the extra $20k per year.
Jeff
On Dec 14, 6:50 am, John <sc...@peoplepedia.org> wrote:
> Just started thinking about this... but now that we are basically paying
> for all the datastore reads/writes, and bandwidth separately...
>
> Isn't paying $60 a month for a 600 MHZ instance with only 128 MB ram a
> little expensive?
>
> Just taking a quick glance at EBAY, I can buy a > 2 GHZ machines with over
> a GB of memory all day long.
> I can buy BRAND NEW Intel Atom Dual-Core D525 Processor(1.8GHz, 1MB L2
> Cache), Support Intel Hyper-Threading technology,
> with 1GB memory for ~ $160 all day longhttp://www.amazon.com/SHUTTLE-XS35V2-PC-Barebone-System/dp/B004XJCCQO...
exactly jeff, well put.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
On Dec 14, 10:36 am, Jeff Schnitzer <j...@infohazard.org> wrote:
With other cloud providers and the Remote API you *totally* can do
that here. It's actually quite easy. It's just lame.
Jeff
If computer time is "free", what is up with the exponential memory costs?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/8QpGUUoyNJwJ.
Using it wrong? Let's see.My first choice is F1 instance with 128 MB ram = .08/hrIf I want more, my next available option is F2 with 256 MB ram = .16/hrIf I want more, my only next available option is F4 with 512 MB ram = .32/hrEach available choice is double the cost of the previous one.... hmmm.....
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/8Lsl5yaYtecJ.
People are hung up on this 600mhz 128m Ram thing. If you are using the API’s you are likely barely touching your CPU, and if you are using MemCache and Datastore most the time you aren’t using ram.
GAE is not the choice for Folding/Unfolding proteins or searching for ET. But if you are building Data Intense apps you can’t touch it on price.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/NQ8l_6H79ZgJ.
Monthly Uptime Percentage | Percentage of monthly bill credited to future monthly bills of Customer |
---|---|
99.00% – < 99.95% | 10% |
95.00% – < 99.00% | 25% |
< 95.00% | 50% |
so if we follow your image that hardware is free and we pay for the software licence this is quite similar to Oracles "paying for cores". we will see how good this K * size will work in the cloud environment ;)
sticking to your example: Oracle provides substantial sales discount that raises with the lump sum price.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/LGBgz84CWrgJ.
Only if you can use the indexes provided. If you need a slightly
different index (say, a spatial index), you're forced to maintain it
in a third-party cloud. This was one of the original design goals for
Backends; I recall one of Ikai's posts describing a fulltext search
index as a use case. And yet backends are totally useless as index
repositories because they're priced 10X what it would cost to put the
index *anywhere* else.
1) You can't use backends as fast indexes because they are too expensive.
2) You can't use backends as persistent state because they aren't
reliable enough.
What can you use them for? They let you execute a single task longer
than 10minutes. Pretty weak sauce. They could have solved that
problem just by enabling long-running frontend requests url-by-url in
the app.yaml - that wouldn't require me to split my code and create
separate deployment modules.
I love Appengine, but Backends are a non-feature just like Email. It
would be better if Google engineers didn't waste their time creating
features nobody can use.
Jeff
Sure we can't all be the genius architect I am (or possibly as good at
dissecting other people's information) but you trade what you store and how
you store it, in order to optimize for the platform.
But again it always comes back to people trying to make GAE act like other
platforms, It isn't. Is it better? Guess that depends on if you Like Ruby's
Philosophy of there are 10 ways to do everything, and not Wrong answers. Or
Python's There is only one way to do something and that way will be right.
GAE is about understanding what you need to do, and optimizing for the way
GAE wants you to do it. To Be honest I have never worked in a platform so
Rigid in architecture, or so limitless in potential.
I think "creative" problem solvers don't thrive on GAE. The rigidity stifles
them as they attempt to solve problems that don't need to be solved. And
Architects thrive because the Lego Pieces to play with are so abundant.
-----Original Message-----
From: google-a...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:11 PM
To: google-a...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a
600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
Yeah yeah yeah, we can (and often do) come up with workarounds when
necessary. I use geohashing in a couple of my production apps. But
it these workarounds provide *very* narrow bounds around the problem
domain. One change to the sort, or one more inequality, and all bets
are off.
And that only works if your index is a well-known problem domain. I
was one of the early testers of Backends and used it for the index
that makes http://www.similarity.com/ run. I thought it was great.
Then Google announced pricing, and I quickly migrated the index to
rackspace cloud for one sixth the price.
I'm not saying there isn't always a workaround. But often that
workaround is "abandon GAE for part of your application". Of the four
major (and wildly-different) applications I've built on GAE, all have
required this "workaround". I'm pretty ok with that, except when the
only reason it's necessary is because of a bonkers pricing decision.
Jeff
Just because the memory/cpu just happens to be double too.
> That is exponential. Am I missing something here??
The size->price relationship is actually linear.
>
> e.g. 2^n where i is the index of the instance choice (0,1,2,...)
>
> therefore
>
> cost = 2^n * .08
>
> Based on that, if an F8 were to be available, a 1024MB instance would be 2^3
> *.08 = .64/hr
memory = 2^n * 128
too. Just coincidence.
If there was an F3 (n=3) with 384MB 1.8Gz, and $0.24 - it would no
longer be 'exponential' under your definiton.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/YsLOg3QQlAoJ.
-----Original Message-----
From: google-a...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:59 PM
To: google-a...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a
600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE
Jeff
--
GAE FORCES you to think about your code. But it allows you to forget about everything else.
My implication was with in regards to Data handling.
I said GAE is rigid. It does what it does, and you can’t change it.
BUT….
GAE is optimized to do Core things in the most optimal way possible. Google does indexed lookups on huge scale faster and cheaper than anything else. If you want to index in some way Google doesn’t you have to implement that code in to the way Google Does Indexing. When you run other software someone has written that code for you, often you can’t change it, you can’t mod it.
If You are working In the cloud you should be focusing on predictable scalable units that have a linear, or improved efficiency with scale. Google Does this. No one else does. I can manage 100k instance software environment with GAE with a single developer.
Try that with any other platform, you can’t as you get bigger you will hit the limits of your Duplo blocks. I can build the next Facebook on GAE. You can’t do that on Amazon. Because you will hit the back plain limits, the transaction limits, the ACID limits, the Elasticity is not Dynamic enough to handle changes in traffic hour by hour minute by minute.
GAE FORCES you to think about your code. But it allows you to forget about everything else.
From: google-a...@googlegroups.com [mailto:google-a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mike hershey
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:56 PM
To: google-a...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE
I think you've got that backwards. The other cloud services referenced (amazon/rackspace) are IaaS, and allow you to host your own operating system that you have complete control over. App engine is the service with a layer between the data and the application. You can't control how app engine datastore works. On rackspace/amazon you can host whatever database you want or make your own database. It its a totally different service model.
I'm not saying one is better then the other, but your implying that you have more control with app engine then you do with other cloud services when its quite the opposite.
I think most people who use app engine prefer it because you don't have to understand how everything works. I get a black box servlet environment, datastore, and whatever else a site typically needs. I don't have to waste time knowing how all of this works, I just get to use it. People who need the sort of control you are talking about tend to prefer IaaS services where you can control how everything works.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/EvR7Ik_VjqIJ.
Brandon, I humbly suggest you just haven't hit an edge case yet.
There are plenty of indexing problems which GAE simply doesn't offer a
solution to. When I am forced to think about "does polygon A overlap
with polygon B?", I look for R-tree indexes... which GAE doesn't
offer. There are a million spatial index functions which are
no-brainers in PostGIS but represent man-years of work on GAE. And of
course there's fulltext indexing.
GAE gets more features every month, which is great. The magic
anti-exploding-index queries recently added are a godsend. Fulltext
indexing is on its way. And I'll be jumping up and down in happiness
when true spatial indexes show up. But let's not pretend that GAE is
complete. And let's make sure Google knows it when they make missteps
like pricing large instances unreasonably or offering halfway email
solutions that do little more than generate complaints on this list.
Jeff
Works really well and is blazing fast on GAE. Sell it to you for $500k.
-----Original Message-----
From: google-a...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Schnitzer
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 6:33 PM
To: google-a...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a
600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
Jeff
--
We are the 20%
I think most people who use app engine prefer it because you don't have to understand how everything works. I get a black box servlet environment, datastore, and whatever else a site typically needs. I don't have to waste time knowing how all of this works, I just get to use it. People who need the sort of control you are talking about tend to prefer IaaS services where you can control how everything works.
12 trucks have to deliver 144 items and pick up 60 items, No truck can have
more than 14 items at any given time. Do to a Quirk in what we are shipping
let's say it is dogs and cats... You can never be hauling both a dog, and a
cat at the same time, but you can be picking up a dog, at a location you
just deposited a cat. Also if you travel with a Dog for more than 3 hours
you explode, but you can trade dogs for ones that won't explode at any place
that can swap dogs with you.
While I call this a traveling sales man, we also have an acceptable penalty
for failed pickups and failed deliveries, so it is more chess engine than
Traveling Salesman. Capture X pieces in Y moves and score as many points
as possible.
My piece was really just building the What are the valid moves at this point
in time. I didn't have to solve all the rest.
Also The items being shipped were not Dogs, They were something far more
Fissile.
I know it does not sound good, but they better do same as AWS for
pricing
Make trial for something like 6 month and after that no more free apps
This way prices spread more evenly for everybody and eliminate stupid
9/month fee
But only time will show
Also why can not they just sell virtual servers like AWS
On Dec 14, 6:50 am, John <sc...@peoplepedia.org> wrote:
> Just started thinking about this... but now that we are basically paying
> for all the datastore reads/writes, and bandwidth separately...
>
> Isn't paying $60 a month for a 600 MHZ instance with only 128 MB ram a
> little expensive?
>
> Just taking a quick glance at EBAY, I can buy a > 2 GHZ machines with over
> a GB of memory all day long.
> I can buy BRAND NEW Intel Atom Dual-Core D525 Processor(1.8GHz, 1MB L2
> Cache), Support Intel Hyper-Threading technology,
> with 1GB memory for ~ $160 all day longhttp://www.amazon.com/SHUTTLE-XS35V2-PC-Barebone-System/dp/B004XJCCQO...
>
> Call me crazy, but I still have my 1 GHZ pc I bought back in 1999 (12 years
> ago) sitting in the garage and I would have a problem giving it away (It
> also has a lot more memory than 128 MB ram).
>
> A standard (small) SAME PRICEd Amazon EC2 instance comes with 1.7 GB of
> memory and even their FREE micro instance gives you 613 MB of memory.
>
> I understand computers were a lot more expensive back in 1999, but they
> have gotten a lot cheaper over the past few years.
>
> Please justify what I am paying for because right now I am trying to
> justify upgrading to the F2 instance class for twice the price ($120/month)
> just so I can double up and get a whopping 256MB ram!
I've filed a bug report here:
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=6236
On Dec 15, 7:58 am, John <sc...@peoplepedia.org> wrote:
> When it comes to writes I call it the "times two phenomenon". I have NO
> IDEA why you can't do anything that is not 2 writes???
>
> e.g.
> If you have a very simple Entity with 5 properties (none set to the NON
> default status of Unindexed) and you save it, it is 12 writes.
>
> Key <http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?&kind=Test&order=__key__>Write
> OpsID/Name<http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?&kind=Test&order=__key__>
> firstName<http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?&kind=Test&order=firstName>
> four <http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?&kind=Test&order=four>
> lastName<http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?&kind=Test&order=lastName>
> six <http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?&kind=Test&order=six>three<http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?&kind=Test&order=three>
> agtwaXhvdG8tbGl2ZXILCxIEVGVzdBiNAQw12141JoedoorBobsticksfree
>
> So you get slammed with 12 writes. Each property is 2 writes.
>
> Here is a PropertyLess Entity
> Key<http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?&kind=PropertyLess&order=-_...>Write
> OpsID/Name<http://localhost:8080/_ah/admin/datastore?&kind=PropertyLess&order=-_...>
> agtwaXhvdG8tbGl2ZXITCxIMUHJvcGVydHlMZXNzGI4BDA2142
>
> 2 writes. Who needs properties anyhow? That would mean you could query on
> them. Queries return results, results are reads. Reads cost money.
>
> Oh wait, that is what memcache is for... wait a sec, memcache took down my
> whole site Monday from MemcacheServiceExceptions
>
> http://code.google.com/status/appengine/detail/memcache/2011/12/12#ae...
When it comes to writes I call it the "times two phenomenon". I have NO IDEA why you can't do anything that is not 2 writes???
e.g.If you have a very simple Entity with 5 properties (none set to the NON default status of Unindexed) and you save it, it is 12 writes.
So you get slammed with 12 writes. Each property is 2 writes.Here is a PropertyLess Entity
2 writes. Who needs properties anyhow? That would mean you could query on them. Queries return results, results are reads. Reads cost money.Oh wait, that is what memcache is for... wait a sec, memcache took down my whole site Monday from MemcacheServiceExceptions
"Also in my app app engine often spins up idle instances (that I cannot get rid of no matter what I configure) and send them exactly 1 request every 15 minutes so that I'm being charged the whole time for this instance I don't want."
This happens to me also... Why is it if you have 6 instances, 2 of them get most of the requests 3 of them get none and occasionally App Engine will start up a 7th instance while the idle 3 still get nothing?Don't get me wrong. I LOVE what App Engine stands for and I have all the respect in the world for the App Engine team. BUT, I have been through SO much grief ranging from random app engine problems to having to migrate to an HR datastore to dramatic increases in pricing. When I signed up for this (old pricing), I thought the pricing would eventually get better (almost like gmail and disk space), but instead it went the opposite. Had my experience been perfect here and my app had run flawlessly all this time, I would have had no gripes and shut up and spent the extra cash without blinking. But, instead I have experienced hair loosing problems, massive variations in performance and got stuck with a much larger bill.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/DElz4NPSc8oJ.
On Dec 14, 3:36 pm, "Brandon Wirtz" <drak...@digerat.com> wrote:
> People are hung up on this 600mhz 128m Ram thing. If you are using the
> API’s you are likely barely touching your CPU, and if you are using MemCache
> and Datastore most the time you aren’t using ram.
>
> GAE is not the choice for Folding/Unfolding proteins or searching for ET.
> But if you are building Data Intense apps you can’t touch it on price.
>
> From: google-a...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:google-a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of André Pankraz
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 1:21 PM
> To: google-a...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600
> MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE
>
> the main problem with heroku seems to be that they start with a minimum of
> 200$ a month for the database - not very open source friendly?! it pays off
> if you use 1 TB data. Maybe I miss cheaper options there.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/NQ8l_6H79ZgJ.
That isn’t actually the rule.
And if they kick him out for it I’ll loan him my lawyer.
AppEngine is great for SEO, and likely your pages load faster running on GAE which is good for CTR.
From: google-a...@googlegroups.com [mailto:google-a...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mike hershey
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:07 AM
To: google-a...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [google-appengine] Re: Isn't .08/hr 1.92/day $59.52/month for a 600 MHZ CPU instance with 128 MB memory a LITTLE EXPENSIVE
Woops, better take down those pictures! Your violating adsense's ToS. Your not allowed to share CPM with anyone. Just a heads up, I would hate to see your adsense account disabled
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/xCXOCy-d6FcJ.
Not the forum for discussing, but you can share with your Affiliates, which has no definition. And I would say you are my affiliate. Also there are several California cases (which govern this contract) that say that a contract cannot require that parties don’t disclose the price of goods, as part of anti-monopoly requirements.
If you want to look at the contract, Clause 14 says that if Google is found to be a monopoly in the Advertising or search space, you are required to pay for their defense.
Paragraph 17 says the contract is bound to California law, unless California law conflicts with the contract terms.
Paragraph 3 precludes you ever talking to any advertiser who you have written a review about if they have advertised on your site through Adsense…
Paragraph 5 says as an adsense user you are never allowed to tell someone to “Google …. “ the topic.
Clause 8 says that if Google doesn’t want to pay you they don’t have to.
If you think that the Adsense TOS is enforced as written you are mistaken. They will let you do anything you want if you make them enough money, and they will screw you over if it suits them, or if they aren’t paying attention and it is inconvenient to fix.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/b6rwZei2eXMJ.