What do you want to see answered in Greg's pricing FAQ?

[Kenneth]

Greg mentioned he was putting together an FAQ so let's help him out! 

If you're going to answer this just put in your question into a single line, let's not try and answer them here or give opinions, there's plenty of other threads for that. I do understand that Google doesn't have answers to some these.

Here's my list:

1) What is the time granularity of the instance pricing?  ie if I have an instance up for 5 minutes, what am I charged, $0.08 / 60*5?

2) Will I be able to tune the scheduler myself, ie set it to performance or low cost,  Will I be able to limit the min or max number of instances created (with the obvious impact on user experience)?

3) Python concurrency, will this require any code changes, do you have any estimates based on your testing of the number of well behaved requests per second a single instance will be able to handle for a given framework?

4) Database charges, when can you give us more details over what Max gave in the other thread, are you charging for deletes, what do you expect the ratio to be between the new pricing metric and the Datastore API calls metric we have today?

5) Will you be charging differently for instances that use different amounts of memory, since this seems to be the cost that you're going after that isn't charged for in the current model.

Thanks,

Kenneth

[Gregory D'alesandre]

Thanks Kenneth!

Its been a busy day so I haven't been able to answer all the questions in the group, but I will do so tomorrow morning (well, morning my time) as well as cull for the questions that seemed concerning and people wanted answered.

I'll make sure to include all of these, but for now, some answers below:

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Kenneth <kenn...@aladdinschools.com> wrote:

Greg mentioned he was putting together an FAQ so let's help him out! 

If you're going to answer this just put in your question into a single line, let's not try and answer them here or give opinions, there's plenty of other threads for that. I do understand that Google doesn't have answers to some these.

Here's my list:

1) What is the time granularity of the instance pricing?  ie if I have an instance up for 5 minutes, what am I charged, $0.08 / 60*5?

The smallest granularity will be 15 minutes, but part of the scheduler change is to ensure we don't start instances to serve 1 request.

 

2) Will I be able to tune the scheduler myself, ie set it to performance or low cost,  Will I be able to limit the min or max number of instances created (with the obvious impact on user experience)?

Yes, you will be able to tune the scheduler, specific controls are still being worked on, all of the ones you mentioned seem like reasonable ones.

 

3) Python concurrency, will this require any code changes, do you have any estimates based on your testing of the number of well behaved requests per second a single instance will be able to handle for a given framework?

We are still evaluating various methods to potentially handle Python concurrency, so don't yet have an answer to whether it will require code changes.  In terms of the number of requests per second that can be handled depends primarily on your code.  We've done stats on what the max requests that can be handled and I'll post those numbers.

 

4) Database charges, when can you give us more details over what Max gave in the other thread, are you charging for deletes, what do you expect the ratio to be between the new pricing metric and the Datastore API calls metric we have today?

Soon.  :)

 

5) Will you be charging differently for instances that use different amounts of memory, since this seems to be the cost that you're going after that isn't charged for in the current model.

The current plan is that all frontend instances have the same CPU and memory limits but there is the potential to later allow customers to configure the instance size for frontends.

I'll gather all of these into a document tomorrow.

Thanks,

Greg

 

Thanks,

Kenneth

--
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.

[peterk]

>> The smallest granularity will be 15 minutes, but part of the scheduler change is to ensure we don't start instances to serve 1 request.

This is useful to know so thank you for letting us know this. But it's disappointing to say the least. We're going from millisecond granularity with CPU-hours to chunks up to 15 minutes depending on how many requests you get out of a new instance. 

Anyway, in the FAQ, I'd like a transparent, honest answer about why the switch from CPU-hours to instance-hours (not a vague 'based on the value of the service', 'based on feedback'), and a comprehensive outline of the ramifications. 

Thanks,

-Peter

[Vinuth Madinur]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:47 PM, peterk <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The smallest granularity will be 15 minutes, but part of the scheduler change is to ensure we don't start instances to serve 1 request.

This is useful to know so thank you for letting us know this. But it's disappointing to say the least. We're going from millisecond granularity with CPU-hours to chunks up to 15 minutes depending on how many requests you get out of a new instance. 

+1.

 

[pdknsk]

> Anyway, in the FAQ, I'd like a transparent, honest answer about why the
> switch from CPU-hours to instance-hours (not a vague 'based on the value of
> the service', 'based on feedback'), and a comprehensive outline of the
> ramifications.

"In its three short year history, Google App Engine has evolved from
its grass roots developer origins to a technology used more and more
by global businesses. This session will review App Engine’s history
and explain how it will be continuing to evolve to serve an increasing
Enterprise audience."

http://www.google.com/events/io/2011/sessions/building-enterprise-applications-on-app-engine.html

[peterk]

Ha.

Well, if that's the motivation, if it's coming from 'enterprise', then to rephrase, I'd like to see that explained and outlined fully in this new FAQ, and what from Google's point of view this orientation will mean for 'grass roots' developers.

I mean, they talked so much about how they wanted to support the people building the next Facebook - that kind of developer. 'That kind of developer' is people working out of dorms and garages and at home and in small teams, not suits in established companies. The next facebook won't locate on AppEngine if 'grass roots' devs are to be abandoned in favour of extracting as much values as possible out of Best Buy.

-P

[Gaurav]

My question for the FAQ:

Why? :(

[Spines]

1. How will the "Always On" feature be handled?

[Vanni.T]

Thanks to Kennet for the right subset of first questions.

Thanks to Greg for his answers, especially that about scheduler tuning by user: it will put a cap to skyrocketing bills with a fair performance cap instead of out-of-quotas service disruption.

Waiting for your document :)

Regards,

Vanni

[Vanni.T]

Sorry, KennetH :P

[Peter Petrov]

My single question for Greg's FAQ:

1) What is the justification behind the extremely high price for additional instances?

Here is a comparison between a GAE Frontend Python Instance and a small Rackspace Cloud Server:

GAE Frontend Python Instance:

-------------------------------------------------

Monthly price: $57.60 ($36.00 if reserved)

RAM: 128 MB memory cap

CPU: 600 MHz limit

Capabilities: Limited by the Python sandbox. No native code execution. Single-threaded right now, possible future multi-threading obstructed by the GIL.

Rackspace Cloud Server 256 MB:

-------------------------------------------------

Monthly price: $10.80

RAM: 256 MB fixed

CPU: Guaranteed proportional minimum; Free CPU bursting (I'm using the full power of 4 cores 99% of the time)

Capabilities: Full-featured Linux box, can do whatever you want on it.

--

[Nischal Shetty]

You cannot just compare GAE with Rackspace simply because GAE is unmanaged, we don't do a thing.

Though I would still maintain that the prices are indeed high.

--
-Nischal

+91-9920240474

twitter: NischalShetty

facebook: Nischal

    

[Ross Karchner]

Will the Front End Cache feature ever be formalized as an expected, documented part of the service offering?

[Peter Petrov]

Yes, they are different kinds of beasts. But the resources needed to provide them are the same. And still, the GAE instance costs more than 10 times higher than a Rackspace VPS consuming the same resources. This is an order of magnitude difference.

Being "managed" can justify a higher price, but not 10 times (the "management" in this case is 100% automated).

[JH]

I am curious how "Always On" will be handled? Right now for $8.40 I
get 3 instances always on. Can I still have this? If so will I be
billed 3 * .05 * 24 * 30, or will I only be billed for the actual time
the instances are "used" ?

On May 12, 11:31 am, Peter Petrov <onest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, they are different kinds of beasts. But the resources needed to provide
> them are the same. And still, the GAE instance costs more than 10 times
> higher than a Rackspace VPS consuming the same resources. This is an order
> of magnitude difference.
>
> Being "managed" can justify a higher price, but not 10 times (the
> "management" in this case is 100% automated).
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Nischal Shetty

> <nischalshett...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You cannot just compare GAE with Rackspace simply because GAE is unmanaged,
> > we don't do a thing.
>
> > Though I would still maintain that the prices are indeed high.
>

> > On 12 May 2011 21:46, Peter Petrov <onest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> My single question for Greg's FAQ:
>
> >> 1) What is the justification behind the extremely high price for
> >> additional instances?
>
> >> Here is a comparison between a GAE Frontend Python Instance and a small
> >> Rackspace Cloud Server:
>
> >> GAE Frontend Python Instance:
> >> -------------------------------------------------
> >> Monthly price: $57.60 ($36.00 if reserved)
> >> RAM: 128 MB memory cap
> >> CPU: 600 MHz limit
> >> Capabilities: Limited by the Python sandbox. No native code execution.
> >> Single-threaded right now, possible future multi-threading obstructed by the
> >> GIL.
>
> >> Rackspace Cloud Server 256 MB:
> >> -------------------------------------------------
> >> Monthly price: $10.80
> >> RAM: 256 MB fixed
> >> CPU: Guaranteed proportional minimum; Free CPU bursting (I'm using the
> >> full power of 4 cores 99% of the time)
> >> Capabilities: Full-featured Linux box, can do whatever you want on it.
>

> > twitter: NischalShetty <http://twitter.com/nischalshetty>
> > facebook: Nischal <http://facebook.com/nischal>
>
> > <http://www.justunfollow.com>

[Kaan Soral]

Also currently the python instance can only serve 1 request at a time,
so 128mb ram doesn't matter much

My question for FAQ is similiar too:
Is there a possibility of Python not getting a solution for
concurrency and us paying high amounts for this reason?

On May 12, 7:16 pm, Peter Petrov <onest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My single question for Greg's FAQ:
>
> 1) What is the justification behind the extremely high price for additional
> instances?
>
> Here is a comparison between a GAE Frontend Python Instance and a small
> Rackspace Cloud Server:
>
> GAE Frontend Python Instance:
> -------------------------------------------------
> Monthly price: $57.60 ($36.00 if reserved)
> RAM: 128 MB memory cap
> CPU: 600 MHz limit
> Capabilities: Limited by the Python sandbox. No native code execution.
> Single-threaded right now, possible future multi-threading obstructed by the
> GIL.
>
> Rackspace Cloud Server 256 MB:
> -------------------------------------------------
> Monthly price: $10.80
> RAM: 256 MB fixed
> CPU: Guaranteed proportional minimum; Free CPU bursting (I'm using the full
> power of 4 cores 99% of the time)
> Capabilities: Full-featured Linux box, can do whatever you want on it.
>

[Maximillian Dornseif]

What does the Premium cost of "$500/account" mean? Per Google Apps Account? Per Developer Account, Per Application Owner Account?

--md

[Joshua Smith]

My FAQ question (which went unanswered by Google in an earlier thread, I assume because of the sheer volume of questions right now):

High Replication Datastore as default: ... encouraging everybody to begin plans to migrate….

Mail API: ...we’ve reduced the number of free recipients per day from 2000 to 100 for newly created applications...

So if we migrate to HR Datastore, does that mean we have a "newly created" application, and will get dinged by this new, rather low, free quota for email?  Could you grandfather in migrated apps at the old 2000 limit?

[Vanni Totaro]

Hi Greg,

no FAQ from you yet...

so in the meanwhile here it is a list of links you (and Ikai, Nick, Justin, etc.) should visit to know what gae users said in the last couple of days about pricing news.

GAE Forum topics:

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2FVCYbRH4WWBI%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2Fig3iefPvvzc%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2F8qFRSYBCXUs%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2FI34-L5CFCTM%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2FD-9KTCKlADk%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2FxwCz5MF_zpw%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2FavsuoqrJXu8%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2FS1VY_7M9RZg%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2F48RZl_m2uG0%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2F6DLRc1GXNYY%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2FHs9iLKB6sUM%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2FnevG0iZ9WHw%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2F_l06D9uBZpI%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine%2FdH_LmXNAL9k%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/python-forum.html?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine-python%2FOUexOoyjnak%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/java-forum.html?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine-java%2F1jfPXqdz_LA%2Fdiscussion

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/java-forum.html?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine-java%2F8ulE2tOW-Co%2Fdiscussion

GAE Blog comments:

http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-google-app-engine.html

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

http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/app-engine-at-io-2011-day-2.html

Hacker News comments:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2533416

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2533413

Reddit comments:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AppEngine/comments/h8sue/rip_appengine_xpost_from_rpython/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/h8stj/rip_appengine/

http://www.reddit.com/r/AppEngine/comments/h8971/new_app_engine_pricing_what_do_you_think/

http://www.reddit.com/r/AppEngine/comments/h86jq/go_app_engine/

http://www.reddit.com/r/AppEngine/comments/h8ib4/app_engine_150_released/

Regards,

Vanni

[marcdmarc]

I agree with Kaan.  I believe Google needs to take an official stance for all of us python developers who have invested heavily in learning how to optimize GAE for python development.  

1)  Would you please state weather GAE team will be releasing an equivalent multi-safe-threading python environment (without the GIL) similar to java, or have a different pricing model for python all together.  

2)  If GAE team is not going to change pricing for python devs, or has no plans to release a multi-safe-threading python environment, they could at least be kind enough to not keep this a secret and let us know now, so we can each make an informed decision on how we should proceed with our projects.  Keeping us python developers in the dark is not a very pleasing thing to experience, especially with so much effort invested on our parts.  I lost sleep last night not knowing weather the past year of my life has been wasted learning python GAE development for my startup.

3) And weather or not we would be better off using GAE Java.  Since I understand App Engine, it would be easy to make a switch, but we must not be kept in the dark.  Please make a statement answering weather Java will be the better option for those without extremely deep pockets launching startups.

 

[Gregory D'alesandre]

Still working on pulling all the information together (rather than answering the questions one off).  Thanks for the consolidated list of comments that you found.

Greg

--

[Greg]

The new pricing announcement has put instance performance into the
spotlight, and GAE comes out looking very bad compared to other cloud
solutions*. My question is how can Google justify roughly equivalent
pricing for a product that is 15-30 times less powerful? I'm happy to
pay a margin for GAE's scalability and platform management, but I'd
suggest that margin should be more like 50%, than 1500% to 3000%.

*An EC2 instance running Drupal can handle 45-60 requests a second.
Because it's single-threaded, a GAE instance running Django can only
handle 2-3 requests a second.

I recommend that Google figures out how to do concurrent requests per
instance before adopting an instance-hour pricing model, or else
discounts the floated instance-hour price by at least 90%.

Cheers
Greg.

[saidimu apale]

Thanks for the collection of links, very useful.

Hacker News isn't the fount of wisdom it once was (if its mythology is to be believed), but here's the money quote from a Hacker News thread:

I guess I felt that my implicit feelings on App Engine were something like, "Hey hackers! You should totally rewrite your apps for our Google systems that are a lot more efficient than other systems. Yeah, there are some annoying restrictions that you'll have to get used to and are totally a pain for some things. Still, out service is cheap for loads of usage and really cheap even after that so you're spending a little programmer time for no-hassle-scaling and cheaper hosting than anything you can get!"
However, they've consistently lowered the free usage tier to being a fraction of what it once was, they're now charging a ton more with their instance-hour model compared to the old CPU based model, a bit of the reliability/scaling sheen has worn off as it's had problems, other competitors have been aggressively entering this space, and you still have to alter your apps specifically for their architecture. I'm not saying that App Engine doesn't have value, just that it feels very different.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2533898

saidimu

--

[Brandon Thomson]

Here is an idea for the FAQ: How will versions work with the new pricing?

Currently, when switching default versions, old and new instances are spun up simultaneously for a while. Will switching default versions thus incur additional fees? How does the 15-minute granularity on instance charges work here? Will it make a difference if you deploy on top of the current version instead of incrementing the version?

If the "version trick" is used to run, say, one version as Python and one version as Go within the same app, does that count as two billable instances? Does it count even if they both use less than 20MB of memory?

[Kayode Odeyemi]

how does the instance work? If I have multiple modules in one app, how
many instance is that? Or does it just mean that for as long as my app
is a singleton, no matter the amount of modules I have, it is still a
single instance.

At what point is Google distributing my app unto more than one server,
which will definitely cause more than one instance? Is it possible to
control the instances created? I mean like force App Engine to manage
resources within a fixed number of instances instead of trying to be
so perfect (unmanaged) that it costs me lots of money.

Greg, I'll be looking forward to your answers on these FAQs because
I'll be giving a talk on Google App Engine at upcoming CloudCamp
event.

Regards

> --
> 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.
>
>

--
Odeyemi 'Kayode O.
http://www.sinati.com. t: @charyorde

[planetjones]

I would like to see:

a) Is Google now concentrating solely on the enterprise and, with this
latest release, effectively stating that App Engine is not a viable
platform for college students, part-time hackers and enthusiasts to
develop on?

b) Should Google have communicated the fact that pricing could be
subject to such a radical overhaul (Instance Hours & subscription to
enable scalability, as opposed to CPU based) once it left preview more
clearly.

On May 14, 5:03 am, Kayode Odeyemi <drey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> how does the instance work? If I have multiple modules in one app, how
> many instance is that? Or does it just mean that for as long as my app
> is a singleton, no matter the amount of modules I have, it is still a
> single instance.
>
> At what point is Google distributing my app unto more than one server,
> which will definitely cause more than one instance? Is it possible to
> control the instances created? I mean like force App Engine to manage
> resources within a fixed number of instances instead of trying to be
> so perfect (unmanaged) that it costs me lots of money.
>
> Greg, I'll be looking forward to your answers on these FAQs because
> I'll be giving a talk on Google App Engine at upcoming CloudCamp
> event.
>
> Regards
>

> On 5/12/11, Kenneth <kennet...@aladdinschools.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Greg mentioned he was putting together anFAQso let's help him out!

[Will]

My question:

Is it responsible and justified for a company like Google to make a drastic price increase on GAE after so many have invested time and resources on it in the past three years? The emphasis here is 'a company like Google'. Speaking for myself, I believe in Google, both technical and moral wise. I jumped in with almost no hesitation in 2008 even GAE was labeled 'preview', because it is from Google.

Best,

Will

[Sylvain]

Hi,

With the actual prices, a very small paid app that only need 1GB above
the free quota costs : $0.15 / month.
With the new prices : $9 (monthly fee) + $0.15 = $9.15.

Old price $2 / year -> new price $110/year (+ $108)
So it increases the price by x55.

For these app, the increase is very high.
What will you answer for them ?

Regards.


On 12 mai, 09:14, Kenneth <kennet...@aladdinschools.com> wrote:
> Greg mentioned he was putting together an FAQ so let's help him out!

[johnP]

100% granular pricing is what made Appengine revolutionary.

[Marcel Overdijk]

When can we expect to have the official FAQ place be available?

[Rafael Nunes]

7) API quota are daily?
8) What is a XMPP instanza? One client connected? One message sent/
received? We will have 1000 instanzas daily?
9)Reserved Frontend instances are something like Always On, they will
be always running?
11) Email API will be 100 recipients emailed? Received? Both?
12) How much RAM my instance will have?


--Rafael

[J Jones]

FAQ Question suggestions:

- Does the Instance Hour pricing as opposed to now means GAE is now
unaffordable for part time hackers e.g. college students, those
working on self funded projects in their spare time? What is Google's
position on this?

- Did GAE provide sufficient information that such a fundamental shift
in the way apps are charged was a possibility, when folk signed up to
GAE . Such detail may have influenced many folks switch to GAE in the
first place.

On May 14, 5:03 am, Kayode Odeyemi <drey...@gmail.com> wrote:

> how does the instance work? If I have multiple modules in one app, how
> many instance is that? Or does it just mean that for as long as my app
> is a singleton, no matter the amount of modules I have, it is still a
> single instance.
>
> At what point is Google distributing my app unto more than one server,
> which will definitely cause more than one instance? Is it possible to
> control the instances created? I mean like force App Engine to manage
> resources within a fixed number of instances instead of trying to be
> so perfect (unmanaged) that it costs me lots of money.
>
> Greg, I'll be looking forward to your answers on these FAQs because
> I'll be giving a talk on Google App Engine at upcoming CloudCamp
> event.
>
> Regards
>

> On 5/12/11, Kenneth <kennet...@aladdinschools.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Greg mentioned he was putting together anFAQso let's help him out!

[Gregory D'alesandre]

Still working on getting as many questions answered as possible, but it will likely be today or tomorrow...

Greg

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Marcel Overdijk <marcelo...@gmail.com> wrote:

When can we expect to have the official FAQ place be available?

[marcdmarc]

Hello Greg,

Just wanted to add a suggestion.  I am considering upgrading to the support plan for $500 a month.  Something to consider may be to add additional "free" quota for those who are signing up for this plan, since they are committing to a monthly minimum.  Depending on the amount of extra "free" quota extended to these accounts, this may help those of us who are not sure weather it is worth the purchase.

I know there are many hobbyists out there, but for those who are complaining about going from $1.00 a month to $9 a month, that should be the least of your concerns.  For those who are actual startups, what we should be asking is questions like the following:

If my current bill was $1000/mo, how much would these new changes to App Engine make my new monthly bill?  Would it be $4000, $10,000, $40,000?  This would really help me determine if I need to seek additional funding to launch my startup on App Engine, or if the costs are reasonable enough, if I could continue to support growth out of my own pocket until a break even point is reached.

The more transparent details you can provide, the better decision startups can make to determine their capital needs.

Best

[Gregory D'alesandre]

Hello all, I post the FAQ, you can find it in here: https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/a1bfa432e0c002a7

I've tried to answer most of the questions there, there are still indeed holes (including how Always-On will work).

Thanks!

Greg

--

[Marc Hede]

If anyone is still monitoring this topic, and interested in asking questions about Python concurrency on App Engine, please see this topic here:

http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/python-forum.html?place=topic%2Fgoogle-appengine-python%2F85EcIif5vNQ%2Fdiscussion

This may also benefit Java developers to but it is mainly geared towards Python runtime specifically.

Best

[Gregory D'alesandre]

I'm still monitoring and working on getting more complete answers to the questions raised, thanks for the pointer though!

Greg

--

[Mars]

I understand that AlwaysOn is still under discussion, but I'd just
like to point out that the old pricing model suggested that having an
idle instance costs around 0.4c/hr (0.3 / 3 / 24) while in the new
model, it costs 5c/hr (reserved instance). The old price might not be
sustainable, but a 12x jump in price is a bit dramatic IMHO.

The other thing I'd like to suggest is to restore the free email quota
to 2000 for paying apps. This way Google can both block off free rider
spammer and not look like a cheap as.

On May 24, 3:51 pm, "Gregory D'alesandre" <gr...@google.com> wrote:
> I'm still monitoring and working on getting more complete answers to the
> questions raised, thanks for the pointer though!
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Marc Hede <marcdh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If anyone is still monitoring this topic, and interested in asking
> > questions about Python concurrency on App Engine, please see this topic
> > here:
>

> >http://code.google.com/appengine/forum/python-forum.html?place=topic%...

[Emanuele Ziglioli]

On May 26, 8:13 am, Mars <mars...@askmymob.com> wrote:
> I understand that AlwaysOn is still under discussion, but I'd just
> like to point out that the old pricing model suggested that having an
> idle instance costs around 0.4c/hr (0.3 / 3 / 24) while in the new
> model, it costs 5c/hr (reserved instance). The old price might not be
> sustainable, but a 12x jump in price is a bit dramatic IMHO.

Isn't one 24h instance included in the $9/month?
Perhaps with multithreading one would be enough for most apps.
What I don't understand: would that be 'always on'? it's fundamental
to have one running to avoid the dreadful cold start delay.

> The other thing I'd like to suggest is to restore the free email quota
> to 2000 for paying apps. This way Google can both block off free rider
> spammer and not look like a cheap as.

you sound like a kiwi :-)

[JH]

I'm wondering if the reduction in mail.api quota + app engine leaving
preview means that the mail service will get an upgrade, and we will
have higher deliverability, or if I should continue using Amazon SES
for my email needs.

On May 12, 2:14 am, Kenneth <kennet...@aladdinschools.com> wrote:
> Greg mentioned he was putting together an FAQ so let's help him out!

[Jeff Schnitzer]

From the general gist of comments here and at I/O, plus lingering
major issues (http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=965),
I wouldn't plan to switch away from Amazon SES anytime soon.

I wouldn't interpret this as a major strike against appengine - after
all, if you were developing on EC2, you'd still be using... SES.
Nothing really wrong with that. I'd rather the GAE team concentrate
on issues that can't be trivially solved by outside services.

Jeff

[Mars]

On May 25, 1:33 pm, Emanuele Ziglioli <theb...@emanueleziglioli.it>
wrote:

> On May 26, 8:13 am, Mars <mars...@askmymob.com> wrote:
>
> > I understand that AlwaysOn is still under discussion, but I'd just
> > like to point out that the old pricing model suggested that having an
> > idle instance costs around 0.4c/hr (0.3 / 3 / 24) while in the new
> > model, it costs 5c/hr (reserved instance). The old price might not be
> > sustainable, but a 12x jump in price is a bit dramatic IMHO.
>
> Isn't one 24h instance included in the $9/month?
> Perhaps with multithreading one would be enough for most apps.
> What I don't understand: would that be 'always on'? it's fundamental
> to have one running to avoid the dreadful cold start delay.

I think it's 3 instances for Always On when it was first released in
1.4.0:
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/0f90ef8dda3b8400

Not sure if it's still the case.

>
> > The other thing I'd like to suggest is to restore the free email quota
> > to 2000 for paying apps. This way Google can both block off free rider
> > spammer and not look like a cheap as.
>
> you sound like a kiwi :-)

lol I am one indeed.

[Emanuele Ziglioli]

> I think it's 3 instances for Always On when it was first released in

> 1.4.0:http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/...

>
> Not sure if it's still the case.

yes, it's 3 instances, currently

> > you sound like a kiwi :-)
>
> lol I am one indeed.

he he, are you on twitter?
https://twitter.com/#!/ZiglioNZ

[JH]

Being that an SLA typically just means I will receive a refund for
down time, in other words a fraction of $9/month and $.08/hour, I'd
like to propose an alternative model for people to have paid apps
without an SLA. I am definitely interested in uptime, however a
refund of my $.08/hour for 30 minutes downtime doesn't get me too
excited.

[JH]

While things are still being decided I'd also like to inquire about
"roll over" instance hours. If we switch to this new instance hour
system, say I reserve 24 and only use 20. Can the 4 "roll over" to my
next billing period?

Also, from my previous post, maybe if I decline my SLA I could get 24
extra instance hours a day? (gotta give me credit for trying)

15 minutes idle time billed seems a bit odd, we can't be billed for
what instance time we actually use?

Finally, still curious how "always on" will work..

Thanks and great work on GAE

[Marcel Overdijk]

It keeps quit from Google/Greg's side.
Hope they announce more information shortly.

Everybody is just speculating which is not good.

[Dennis]

Although I was ignoring the $9/app discussion before, now I realize that I want N environments as I develop my app: development, production, test, beta, etc.

And, I would like all those environments to be identical to my production environment (ie: all be "paid" apps).  

Thus, to develop properly the cost is N x $9/month.

I'm not enthusiastic about paying for paid app service level when most of these environments don't need that level of service.

Yet, I don't want to "discover" that there is a difference between 'free' and 'paid' when I finally upload to my production environment.

Paying a little to keep spammy apps away is ok, but I think the payment policy should be focused on the person paying the bill and not the apps that they generate.  

In fact, I would go further and say that google should really encourage developers to get on the highest service level early in the development process.  In particular, always-on and high replication data should be encouraged at the prototype stage so developers can feel how fast their apps will be and ... and so we can imagine what we can do with that enhanced capability!!    "Appengine developers that pay" is a market niche that google should really give incentives to so we can build and evangelize the platform!    In contrast, right now with the current fee structure, I'm on the free tier and waiting each time my prototype is called as the instance is loaded ... I could pay for always-on but I feel a little silly doing that when the prototype is just for me -- the incentives are not aligned correctly...  

Dennis

[marcdmarc]

Hi Greg,

I would be interested in knowing more information on Premium Accounts.  I have a question on the pricing page found here. http://www.google.com/enterprise/appengine/appengine_pricing.html

The page shows that premium accounts receive "Operational Support".  Would you please elaborate on exactly what "Operational Support" means?  Does this mean email support, chat support, phone support, a combination?  Also, what is the response time for this operational support?  What types of things do you provide support for?  Coding?  Increased Errors?  Optimizations?  Please share specifics, so we can have a better understanding if the extra cost is worth the investment.

Thanks