Pay-as-you-go Pricing Announced!
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill
May 27, 2008, 8:11:42 PM5/27/08
to Google App Engine
$0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour
$0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage
$0.11 - $0.13 per GB outgoing bandwidth
$0.09 - $0.11 per GB incoming bandwidth
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/27/3000-developers-to-converge-on-google-io-tomorrow-heres-what-to-expect/
The pay-as-you-go won't be enabled until sometime around the end of
the year.
The quoted CPU pricing "$0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour" is similar to
Amazon EC2 small instance pricing ($0.10/hr), but it's probably not a
straight comparison. AppEngine seems to charge by the sip, as might
be expected from a compute utility, while web apps will probably
require a minimum of 24x7 usage of an EC2 instance. So AppEngine
should be less costly on the low-end.
Here's an interview with some AppEngine managers on the announcements
tomorrow:
http://readwritetalk.com/2008/05/27/pete-koomen-paul-mcdonald-product-managers-google-app-engine/
The image API and memcached stuff looks very interesting.
$0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage
$0.11 - $0.13 per GB outgoing bandwidth
$0.09 - $0.11 per GB incoming bandwidth
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/27/3000-developers-to-converge-on-google-io-tomorrow-heres-what-to-expect/
The pay-as-you-go won't be enabled until sometime around the end of
the year.
The quoted CPU pricing "$0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour" is similar to
Amazon EC2 small instance pricing ($0.10/hr), but it's probably not a
straight comparison. AppEngine seems to charge by the sip, as might
be expected from a compute utility, while web apps will probably
require a minimum of 24x7 usage of an EC2 instance. So AppEngine
should be less costly on the low-end.
Here's an interview with some AppEngine managers on the announcements
tomorrow:
http://readwritetalk.com/2008/05/27/pete-koomen-paul-mcdonald-product-managers-google-app-engine/
The image API and memcached stuff looks very interesting.
Edoardo Marcora
May 27, 2008, 9:56:52 PM5/27/08
to Google App Engine
Nice to see the storage costs are aligned with Amazon S3! Let's
program the next YouTube!!! ;)
Dado
On May 27, 5:11 pm, Bill <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour
> $0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage
> $0.11 - $0.13 per GB outgoing bandwidth
> $0.09 - $0.11 per GB incoming bandwidth
>
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/27/3000-developers-to-converge-on-g...
program the next YouTube!!! ;)
Dado
On May 27, 5:11 pm, Bill <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour
> $0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage
> $0.11 - $0.13 per GB outgoing bandwidth
> $0.09 - $0.11 per GB incoming bandwidth
>
>
> The pay-as-you-go won't be enabled until sometime around the end of
> the year.
>
> The quoted CPU pricing "$0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour" is similar to
> Amazon EC2 small instance pricing ($0.10/hr), but it's probably not a
> straight comparison. AppEngine seems to charge by the sip, as might
> be expected from a compute utility, while web apps will probably
> require a minimum of 24x7 usage of an EC2 instance. So AppEngine
> should be less costly on the low-end.
>
> Here's an interview with some AppEngine managers on the announcements
> tomorrow:
>
> http://readwritetalk.com/2008/05/27/pete-koomen-paul-mcdonald-product...
> The pay-as-you-go won't be enabled until sometime around the end of
> the year.
>
> The quoted CPU pricing "$0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour" is similar to
> Amazon EC2 small instance pricing ($0.10/hr), but it's probably not a
> straight comparison. AppEngine seems to charge by the sip, as might
> be expected from a compute utility, while web apps will probably
> require a minimum of 24x7 usage of an EC2 instance. So AppEngine
> should be less costly on the low-end.
>
> Here's an interview with some AppEngine managers on the announcements
> tomorrow:
>
Tom
May 28, 2008, 3:50:56 AM5/28/08
to Google App Engine
I am confused!
The throttled basic account will remain free, right?
So this will stand:
"It's free to get started.
Every Google App Engine application can use up to 500MB of persistent
storage and enough bandwidth and CPU for 5 million monthly page
views."
I sure hope so ...
Thanks
The throttled basic account will remain free, right?
So this will stand:
"It's free to get started.
Every Google App Engine application can use up to 500MB of persistent
storage and enough bandwidth and CPU for 5 million monthly page
views."
I sure hope so ...
Thanks
fpc0000
May 28, 2008, 7:37:17 AM5/28/08
to Google App Engine
wow,it's a good news.
On May 28, 8:11 am, Bill <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour
> $0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage
> $0.11 - $0.13 per GB outgoing bandwidth
> $0.09 - $0.11 per GB incoming bandwidth
>
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/27/3000-developers-to-converge-on-g...
On May 28, 8:11 am, Bill <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour
> $0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage
> $0.11 - $0.13 per GB outgoing bandwidth
> $0.09 - $0.11 per GB incoming bandwidth
>
>
> The pay-as-you-go won't be enabled until sometime around the end of
> the year.
>
> The quoted CPU pricing "$0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour" is similar to
> Amazon EC2 small instance pricing ($0.10/hr), but it's probably not a
> straight comparison. AppEngine seems to charge by the sip, as might
> be expected from a compute utility, while web apps will probably
> require a minimum of 24x7 usage of an EC2 instance. So AppEngine
> should be less costly on the low-end.
>
> Here's an interview with some AppEngine managers on the announcements
> tomorrow:
>
> http://readwritetalk.com/2008/05/27/pete-koomen-paul-mcdonald-product...
> The pay-as-you-go won't be enabled until sometime around the end of
> the year.
>
> The quoted CPU pricing "$0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour" is similar to
> Amazon EC2 small instance pricing ($0.10/hr), but it's probably not a
> straight comparison. AppEngine seems to charge by the sip, as might
> be expected from a compute utility, while web apps will probably
> require a minimum of 24x7 usage of an EC2 instance. So AppEngine
> should be less costly on the low-end.
>
> Here's an interview with some AppEngine managers on the announcements
> tomorrow:
>
Feris Thia
May 28, 2008, 7:55:50 AM5/28/08
to google-a...@googlegroups.com
I agree,
But is manipulating and storing image still have to get through Picasa ?
--
Thanks & Best Regards,
Feris
PT. Putera Handal Indotama
A Business Intelligence Company
Jl. K.H. Moh Mansyur No. 11 B 8 - 12
Jakarta - Indonesia
Phone : +6221-30119353
Fax : +6221-5513483
Mobile : +628176-474-525
http://business-intelligence.phi-integration.com
http://blog.komputasiawan.com
But is manipulating and storing image still have to get through Picasa ?
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:37 AM, fpc0000 <fpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
wow,it's a good news.
>
On May 28, 8:11 am, Bill <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour
> $0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage
> $0.11 - $0.13 per GB outgoing bandwidth
> $0.09 - $0.11 per GB incoming bandwidth
>
Thanks & Best Regards,
Feris
PT. Putera Handal Indotama
A Business Intelligence Company
Jl. K.H. Moh Mansyur No. 11 B 8 - 12
Jakarta - Indonesia
Phone : +6221-30119353
Fax : +6221-5513483
Mobile : +628176-474-525
http://business-intelligence.phi-integration.com
http://blog.komputasiawan.com
manschmidt
May 28, 2008, 9:06:54 AM5/28/08
to Google App Engine
As I read on http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Google-erweitert-Anwendungsdienst-App-Engine--/meldung/108563
, the best thing in my eyes is that there seems to be no fees for GET/
POST-Requests, which is opening the door to cluster-hosted AJAX
applications. If I remember that all my AJAX-Applications are mainly
returning a only 5-10 digits long string (+ header), this will be
really cheap to me..
Hopefully they are guaranting Aviability to us so we can perform this
to our customers aswell in our SLA's.
Keep on coding,
Manuel
On 28 Mai, 13:55, "Feris Thia" <fe...@phi-integration.com> wrote:
> I agree,
>
> But is manipulating and storing image still have to get through Picasa ?
>
, the best thing in my eyes is that there seems to be no fees for GET/
POST-Requests, which is opening the door to cluster-hosted AJAX
applications. If I remember that all my AJAX-Applications are mainly
returning a only 5-10 digits long string (+ header), this will be
really cheap to me..
Hopefully they are guaranting Aviability to us so we can perform this
to our customers aswell in our SLA's.
Keep on coding,
Manuel
On 28 Mai, 13:55, "Feris Thia" <fe...@phi-integration.com> wrote:
> I agree,
>
> But is manipulating and storing image still have to get through Picasa ?
>
Lee O
May 28, 2008, 10:58:11 AM5/28/08
to google-a...@googlegroups.com
I assume "$0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage" means we get physical file storage then?
Will this mean we get any programmatic way to store aswell? Or will we still have no file write access?--
Lee Olayvar
http://www.leeolayvar.com
Will this mean we get any programmatic way to store aswell? Or will we still have no file write access?
Lee Olayvar
http://www.leeolayvar.com
ctran
May 28, 2008, 1:39:47 PM5/28/08
to Google App Engine
This refers to your datastore, I believe. You already have the
ability to store files, with the data store. Big table, remember?
On May 28, 9:58 am, "Lee O" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I assume "$0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage" means we get physical file
> storage then?
>
> Will this mean we get any programmatic way to store aswell? Or will we still
> have no file write access?
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:06 AM, manschmidt <google...@tliff.com> wrote:
>
> > As I read on
Anthony
May 28, 2008, 1:53:01 PM5/28/08
to Google App Engine
What about request times / urlfetch limits - have these been
increased?
Does this mean we can store large files, videos etc in the datastore
or do we still need S3?
increased?
Does this mean we can store large files, videos etc in the datastore
or do we still need S3?
Lee O
May 28, 2008, 1:59:30 PM5/28/08
to google-a...@googlegroups.com
Yea at the moment the datastore stinks for file storage. Wonder what will be done on this front.
Filip
May 29, 2008, 12:50:47 AM5/29/08
to Google App Engine
The way I understand it, there are no immediate plans to turn the
Google App Engine in a file server. The idea is that you should use
BigTable. However, Google did mention in the keynote that they plan to
increase the size of the upload/downloads, that they you could
actually upload larger data blobs.
Filip.
On 28 mei, 19:59, "Lee O" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yea at the moment the datastore stinks for file storage. Wonder what will be
> done on this front.
>
Google App Engine in a file server. The idea is that you should use
BigTable. However, Google did mention in the keynote that they plan to
increase the size of the upload/downloads, that they you could
actually upload larger data blobs.
Filip.
On 28 mei, 19:59, "Lee O" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yea at the moment the datastore stinks for file storage. Wonder what will be
> done on this front.
>
Filip
May 29, 2008, 1:00:59 AM5/29/08
to Google App Engine
Yes, prices are to get more than the basic quota. But although the
prices have been announced, I was told that extra quota cannot be
bought just yet.
prices have been announced, I was told that extra quota cannot be
bought just yet.
Fred Blasdel
May 29, 2008, 2:50:43 AM5/29/08
to Google App Engine
On May 28, 10:00 pm, Filip <filip.verhae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, prices are to get more than the basic quota.
How fast is their platonic CPU-core? (What is the conversion to
megacycles?)
I am most concerned about going over the 1000-blob/500mb limit — if I
do will I have to pay for all my usage of the other resources, or they
quota-ed independently? Storage is not transient like the other
resources :)
— Fred
Filip
May 29, 2008, 7:55:24 PM5/29/08
to Google App Engine
Well, I don't speak for the Google App Engine team. Based on what I
heard today at Google I/O, I'd guess
> For overages or for quota+overage? Per resource, or across the board?
Per overage per resource I guess. Seems unfair otherwise.
> How fast is their platonic CPU-core? (What is the conversion to megacycles?)
Can't answer that one.
> I am most concerned about going over the 1000-blob/500mb limit — if I
> do will I have to pay for all my usage of the other resources, or they
> quota-ed independently? Storage is not transient like the other
> resources :)
Actually, the 1000-blob limit does not exist. That's a typo in the
docs. There is a 1000 file limit though. Their plans on that
particular limit I don't know. I don't anticipate to run into that
file limit anytime soon myself.
On the 500 MB limit, yes you'll have to pay for all storage above 500
MB (or whatever the final limit is they decide upon). Sure, it isn't
transient to you, but neither is it to them. You are free to delete
data, something they can't do. This is essentially identical pricing
concept to what Amazon uses. And it seems the only approach that makes
commercial sense to me.
heard today at Google I/O, I'd guess
> For overages or for quota+overage? Per resource, or across the board?
> How fast is their platonic CPU-core? (What is the conversion to megacycles?)
> I am most concerned about going over the 1000-blob/500mb limit — if I
> do will I have to pay for all my usage of the other resources, or they
> quota-ed independently? Storage is not transient like the other
> resources :)
docs. There is a 1000 file limit though. Their plans on that
particular limit I don't know. I don't anticipate to run into that
file limit anytime soon myself.
On the 500 MB limit, yes you'll have to pay for all storage above 500
MB (or whatever the final limit is they decide upon). Sure, it isn't
transient to you, but neither is it to them. You are free to delete
data, something they can't do. This is essentially identical pricing
concept to what Amazon uses. And it seems the only approach that makes
commercial sense to me.
wongobongo
May 30, 2008, 3:04:31 AM5/30/08
to Google App Engine
On May 28, 10:00 pm, Filip <filip.verhae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, prices are to get more than the basic quota. But although the
> prices have been announced, I was told that extra quota cannot be
> bought just yet.
>
I made up a short summary document comparing the two services GAE vs.
> prices have been announced, I was told that extra quota cannot be
> bought just yet.
>
EC2. If you have any thoughts on this, I'll update the doc with your
comments. Cheers.
http://www.kelvinwong.ca/2008/05/27/pricing-google-app-engine-vs-amazon-ec2/
or
http://turlup.com/_sx
K
max7
Jun 1, 2008, 2:51:15 PM6/1/08
to Google App Engine
Very good pricing for unbreakable hosting.
It looks to be cheaper to host apps on gae then on dedicated servers.
Will google protect its clients from hackers and ddos?
I guess google is able to blacklist all botted clients as it defeats
spam.
On May 28, 3:11 am, Bill <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour
> $0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage
> $0.11 - $0.13 per GB outgoing bandwidth
> $0.09 - $0.11 per GB incoming bandwidth
>
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/27/3000-developers-to-converge-on-g...
It looks to be cheaper to host apps on gae then on dedicated servers.
Will google protect its clients from hackers and ddos?
I guess google is able to blacklist all botted clients as it defeats
spam.
On May 28, 3:11 am, Bill <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour
> $0.15 - $0.18 per GB-month of storage
> $0.11 - $0.13 per GB outgoing bandwidth
> $0.09 - $0.11 per GB incoming bandwidth
>
>
> The pay-as-you-go won't be enabled until sometime around the end of
> the year.
>
> The quoted CPU pricing "$0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour" is similar to
> Amazon EC2 small instance pricing ($0.10/hr), but it's probably not a
> straight comparison. AppEngine seems to charge by the sip, as might
> be expected from a compute utility, while web apps will probably
> require a minimum of 24x7 usage of an EC2 instance. So AppEngine
> should be less costly on the low-end.
>
> Here's an interview with some AppEngine managers on the announcements
> tomorrow:
>
> http://readwritetalk.com/2008/05/27/pete-koomen-paul-mcdonald-product...
> The pay-as-you-go won't be enabled until sometime around the end of
> the year.
>
> The quoted CPU pricing "$0.10 - $0.12 per CPU core-hour" is similar to
> Amazon EC2 small instance pricing ($0.10/hr), but it's probably not a
> straight comparison. AppEngine seems to charge by the sip, as might
> be expected from a compute utility, while web apps will probably
> require a minimum of 24x7 usage of an EC2 instance. So AppEngine
> should be less costly on the low-end.
>
> Here's an interview with some AppEngine managers on the announcements
> tomorrow:
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages