Wondering where this magic lives in the stack. Is this possible in Knative? Just elaborate ctl-Z?
Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
11–20 of 65 posts
Re: Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
#12AppEngine has had scale-to-zero for 15 years, but instead of having a coherent product strategy, why not just launch a different competing product every year which is missing features that already exist? AppEngine vs Cloud Functions vs Cloud Run, the reasons these all exist at the same time is not because it makes any sense for customers, but because Google PMs get promoted for launching new things rather than suppor…
I disagree. App Engine is nothing like Cloud Functions/Run. The former is a better fit for your entire app stack (think Heroku) while the latter is for ad-hoc.
As for Cloud Functions and Cloud Run, the way you deploy is completely different. Cloud Run is strictly meant for containers.
Re: Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
#13AppEngine has had scale-to-zero for 15 years, but instead of having a coherent product strategy, why not just launch a different competing product every year which is missing features that already exist? AppEngine vs Cloud Functions vs Cloud Run, the reasons these all exist at the same time is not because it makes any sense for customers, but because Google PMs get promoted for launching new things rather than suppor…
I disagree. App Engine is nothing like Cloud Functions/Run. The former is a better fit for your entire app stack (think Heroku) while the latter is for ad-hoc. As for Cloud Functions and Cloud Run, the way you deploy is completely different. Cloud Run is strictly meant for containers.
I don't think the 3 products are serving as diverse a set of use cases as you think...
> The former is a better fit for your entire app stack (think Heroku) while the latter is for ad-hoc.
There's no product reason why App Engine couldn't start deploying custom containers.
> As for Cloud Functions and Cloud Run, the way you deploy is completely different. Cloud Run is strictly meant for containers.
AWS Lambda (arguably the "inspiration" for Cloud Functions) just announced support for custom containers. Cloud Functions could too. And then you essentially have Cloud Run.
Re: Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
#14AppEngine has had scale-to-zero for 15 years, but instead of having a coherent product strategy, why not just launch a different competing product every year which is missing features that already exist? AppEngine vs Cloud Functions vs Cloud Run, the reasons these all exist at the same time is not because it makes any sense for customers, but because Google PMs get promoted for launching new things rather than suppor…
Worse than that. Its AppEngine Standard vs AppEngine Flex vs Cloud Functions vs Cloud Run vs KNative (Cloud Run, but different).
Oh and if you used AppEngine Standard, you can't move to Flex as Flex came with a whole new set of libraries. And Flex to CloudRun didn't exactly have a seamless migration.
Along the way they changed multiple internals with deprecation causing code base changes. Such-as Memecache, ImageAPI, Monitoring price changes.
I can't imagine any enterprise who's used the ecosystem continuing. The sheer number of architecture impacting changes leads to huge operational overhead costs to maintain applications running on this infrastructure.
Re: Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
#15AppEngine has had scale-to-zero for 15 years, but instead of having a coherent product strategy, why not just launch a different competing product every year which is missing features that already exist? AppEngine vs Cloud Functions vs Cloud Run, the reasons these all exist at the same time is not because it makes any sense for customers, but because Google PMs get promoted for launching new things rather than suppor…
I disagree. App Engine is nothing like Cloud Functions/Run. The former is a better fit for your entire app stack (think Heroku) while the latter is for ad-hoc. As for Cloud Functions and Cloud Run, the way you deploy is completely different. Cloud Run is strictly meant for containers.
Actually, App Engine is a LOT like Cloud Functions/Run. You have some code that you want to run in the Cloud and you don't want to worry about server ops.
Whether that's your "whole stack" or something "ad-hoc" is a totally arbitrary distinction. Your "whole stack" will almost certainly involve external concerns, and your "ad-hoc" concerns will almost certainly grow in complexity until they converge on the same spot.
AppEngine is also running containers via gvisor.
The distinction is being driven by PMs and marketers but not by the needs of customers. What end-users need is one well-supported tool, not 8 separate tools with uncertainty about which one will receive future support and matrices and flowcharts to decide between them.
Re: Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
#16AppEngine has had scale-to-zero for 15 years, but instead of having a coherent product strategy, why not just launch a different competing product every year which is missing features that already exist? AppEngine vs Cloud Functions vs Cloud Run, the reasons these all exist at the same time is not because it makes any sense for customers, but because Google PMs get promoted for launching new things rather than suppor…
As it happens, Cloud Run is App Engine under the hood. It's a Knative-compatible skin.
Cloud Run for Anthos is a different product, which is the OSS Knative code running on GKE.
Re: Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
#17Just curious but not enough to read the documentation, is there a max setting or can I easily bankrupt my competitors with Apache bench running on a raspberry pi?
There's both a max number of containers setting and a max concurrency limit per container setting. FWIW, I do wish Google added some way to more explicitly prevent abuse with the containers. I had to take down my Cloud Run containers because people found ways to automate access to my services without rate limits, and Google's solution to that was to use a proxy which sorta defeats the point of using Cloud Run.
Apigee is just such a heavy-weight thing. It feels like API Gateway plus Lambda w/ Containers will provide what you want, though, serverless and easy to set up. You can rate-limit per "usage plan" etc.
Re: Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. App Engine is nothing like Cloud Functions/Run. The former is a better fit for your entire app stack (think Heroku) while the latter is for ad-hoc. As for Cloud Functions and Cloud Run, the way you deploy is completely different. Cloud Run is strictly meant for containers.
Actually, App Engine is a LOT like Cloud Functions/Run. You have some code that you want to run in the Cloud and you don't want to worry about server ops. Whether that's your "whole stack" or something "ad-hoc" is a totally arbitrary distinction. Your "whole stack" will almost certainly involve external concerns, and your "ad-hoc" concerns will almost certainly grow in complexity until they converge on the same spot.…
> The distinction is being driven by PMs and marketers but not by the needs of customers.
This is not true. It came directly from customer needs -- customers were looking for an effortless way to run containers without having to deal with orchestrators like k8s or be locked into frameworks like AppEngine.
I've used Cloud Run for a bunch of projects, and it's fantastic.
Re: Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
#19Just curious but not enough to read the documentation, is there a max setting or can I easily bankrupt my competitors with Apache bench running on a raspberry pi?
Since each instance can handle multiple requests, it might be hard to bankrupt someone with a low-powered box.
There's also a standard quota limit for replicas: 1,000 per Service.
Re: Cloud Run adds min instances feature for latency-sensitive apps
#20This is probably not a response to the other story this week about a start-up that got a $70k bill from Google cloud erroneously: