asah / footprint2009dev

original dev repo for AllForGood.org
http://AllForGood.org/
0 stars 1 forks source link

Disk usage on footprint2009dev is very high #320

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Per Paul's email:

I just noticed on http://appengine.google.com/dashboard?
app_id=footprint2009dev, in the dashboard under "Stored Data" it shows the 
dev site using .12 of 1GB.  120MB??  Anyone have any ideas where that usage 
is being spent?  Doesn't seem correct to me.

Or if anyone knows a good way to summarize the data usage per entity 
type...

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kar...@gmail.com on 2 Jun 2009 at 5:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Michael-- can you check the backups to see which table(s) are dominating the 
space 
usage and change this bug to reflect that?  my guess: TestResults.

Original comment by adam.sah on 2 Jun 2009 at 5:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
These are the number of bytes extracted as text from each table using our export
procedure. The actual storage used is probably different and these values 
probably
just give an idea about the proportions 

PageCountShard             567,613
TestResults         58,212
VolunteerOpportunity        11,679
UserInterest            11,352
UserInfo             8,917
VolunteerOpportunityStats    6,220
UserStats              860
Posting                  5
                               =======
                               664,858

Original comment by mt1...@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2009 at 4:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
thanks!  I'm closing out this issue:
 - PageCountShard measures the impressions per listing-- it's a fixed number
   of bytes per listing (modulo BigTable overhead, e.g. garbage collection
   of versions).  I carefully designed it to fit in the space we were allocated.
 - as you can see from the production table, we're fine on space:
   http://appengine.google.com/dashboard/quotadetails?app_id=servicefootprint
   (0.07GB of 600GB quota for those of you lacking access-- sorry!)

karen-- technically marking "invalid" but in fact it was a great catch-- thanks!

Original comment by adam.sah on 3 Jun 2009 at 10:38