The GAE instance gives you more than a single VPS instance.
Most notably is the Free APIs. In effect you have free access to many
things that probably cost you elsewhere. And they dont use the
resources of your instance.
eg on EC2 you pay extra for a Memcache instance (elasticache).
GAE Instances have in effect a free Elastic Load Balancer (continuing
the EC2 comparison) in front of your app. They have Cloudfront bundled
in too (the edge-cache). The image manipulation API, is similar to
running another gearman instance coordinating dedicated software for
resizing iamges (again offloading your instance)
And for the most part you still need a sysadmin to coordinate EC2.
Its the old paas vs iaas argument.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
> 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.
>
>
For my enterprise apps, the new GAE pricing is very reasonable. I'm saving something like $65K/year by not needing a sysadmin to set up and maintain these systems. The 3-year free ride was great, but I'm getting way more than a few hundred dollars of value each month. We'll eventually port to HR to get multi-threads.
For my free app, it's problematic. For Android game back ends, it's problematic. For many .com startups, it's problematic (which is not good for google, because having GAE as a startup incubator was a really good thing).
But for Enterprise apps, which is what GAE has been longing to get to, the new pricing really is just fine.
If you don't think so, then go use EC2. I don't think google is targeting you if you think you know how to build a distributed system, and you think you want to. They are targeting people who don't have the first clue how to build a distributed system, and those who have built them and know how hard it really is.
-Joshua
On Sep 2, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Tapir wrote:
> For a medium traffic website, I can only the amazon EC2
> "Large Instance 7.5 GB, 4 ECUs, 850 GB of local instance storage, 64-
> bit platform, $0.34 per hour"
> or
> "High-Memory Extra Large Instance, 17.1 GB, 6.5 ECUs, 420 GB of local
> instance storage, 64-bit platform, $0.50 per hour"
> with self-installed memory cache and without using load balancer at
> all.
> And the storage price is less than half of gae.
>
> For the same computing power, I need at least 4 gae backends, which
> will cost more than 4 times money than ec2.
>
>
> On Sep 2, 4:41 pm, Barry Hunter <barrybhun...@gmail.com> wrote:
But if have serious traffic, EC2 is a lot of work.
try juggling say 200 EC2 instances. Webservers, Memcache nodes,
Database nodes, load balancers, dns management, backup nodes,
centralized file storage. Code deployment infestructure.
Monitoring/failver management. It adds up.
Even doing it via rightscale or cloud-formation will take you your
time to micromanage it.
Multi-datacenter (regions in EC2) failover? - good luck with that.
Is this mysql database going to scale to 2000QPS? About terabytes of data?
... there are lots of great hosting packages around, ones that will
work perfectly well for small or even medium traffic.
> --
> 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/-/tsSQeRw1ek4J.
I've just designed and built a prototype for hosting django using readily available free software.
A GAE instance is much more than a 'slice of cpu and memory' - it has
a whole 'platform' surrounding it.
Apples != Oranges again.
Or to put it another way, its like comparing two different cars on
their engine alone. You could get a average car, with a really good
engine (and be happy). Or you could get a more expensive car, with a
OK engine, but with nice suspension, interior and a sound system.
The two cars are good in different ways - need to look at the whole
car, to decide if does the job for you.
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Tapir <tapi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ok, sorry about that. But one thing to remember is that SQL is much
> more ..."
> hi, Anders,
> again, this thread is to compare computing prices, not data storage.
> You will pay extra data storage money when using gae.
>
> I just want to get a reason from googlers why gae computing cost 10
> times than competitors.
>
> Anders wrote:
>> Ok, sorry about that. But one thing to remember is that SQL is much more
>> powerful than the GAE datastore when it comes to functionality which would
>> demand a lower price for GAE. On the other hand the GAE datastore is
>> designed for scaling, which may be difficult to achieve using ordinary
>> relational databases like MySQL. I like the GAE datastore because it scales
>> automatically. It's just having to pay for frontend instances I think really
>> sucks.
>
to setup something that's comparable to GAE, you'd have to setup
instances in both
amazon East and West, handle replication from both sides. have fail over.
and no, it's not just as easy as adding machines from both east and
west together as a cluster.
amazon charges you network fee for any traffic outside of a single
region. so ie, you pay for
any traffic between your instances in east and west. Plus you have to
deal with latency.
I understand people are upset about GAE pricing, but let's not pretend
this is as easy as
1: sign up for amazon, 2: setup 3 instances in amazon east, 3: webscale :)
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Andrew Cassidy <an...@bytz.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree that one admin would be enough. I have not used EC2 myself but building a load-balancing, fault-tolerant cluster is relatively trivial if you've done it before.
>
> I've just designed and built a prototype for hosting django using readily available free software.
>
--
Omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum.
Part of the problem is that there is a distinct difference between GAE
frontends and GAE backends. GAE frontends may or may not be
overpriced - certainly they provide compelling benefits WRT
scalability, fault tolerance, access to services, etc.
GAE backends, on the other hand, are clearly overpriced. They provide
little benefit over a server instance in AWS or rackspacecloud or
linode, and they cost 5X as much. The best argument you can make for
backends is that they have direct access to the GAE APIs, but you can
easily enough proxy those calls from outside.
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 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.