Related
Sorry, if this is a naive question, but i've watched bunch of talks from google's staff and still don't understand why on earth i would use AE instead of CF?
If i understood it correctly, the whole concept of both of these services is to build "microservice architecture".
both CF and AE are stateless
both suppose to execute during limited period of time
both can interact with dbs and other gcp apis.
Though, AE must be wrapped into own server. Basically it utilizes a lot of complexities on top of the same capabilities as CF. So, when should i use it instead of CF?
Cloud Functions (CFs) and Google App Engine (GAE) are different tools for different jobs. Using the right tool for the job is usually a good idea.
Driving a nail using pliers might be possible, but it won't be as convenient as using a hammer. Similarly building a complex app using CFs might be possible, but building it using GAE would definitely be more convenient.
CFs have several disadvantages compared to GAE (in the context of building more complex applications, of course):
they're limited to Node.js, Python, Go, Java, .NET Core, and Ruby. GAE supports several other popular programming languages
they're really designed for lightweight, standalone pieces of functionality, attempting to build complex applications using such components quickly becomes "awkward". Yes, the inter-relationship context for every individual request must be restored on GAE just as well, only GAE benefits from more convenient means of doing that which aren't available on CFs. For example user session management, as discussed in other comments
GAE apps have an app context that survives across individual requests, CFs don't have that. Such context makes access to certain Google services more efficient/performant (or even plain possible) for GAE apps, but not for CFs. For example memcached.
the availability of the app context for GAE apps can support more efficient/performant client libraries for other services which can't operate on CFs. For example accessing the datastore using the ndb client library (only available for standard env GAE python apps) can be more efficient/performant than using the generic datastore client library.
GAE can be more cost effective as it's "wholesale" priced (based on instance-hours, regardless of how many requests a particular instance serves) compared to "retail" pricing of CFs (where each invocation is charged separately)
response times might be typically shorter for GAE apps than CFs since typically the app instance handling the request is already running, thus:
the GAE app context doesn't need to be loaded/restored, it's already available, CFs need to load/restore it
(most of the time) the handling code is already loaded; CFs' code still needs to be loaded. Not too sure about this one; I guess it depends on the underlying implementation.
App Engine is better suited to applications, which have numerous pieces of functionality behaving in various inter-related (or even unrelated) ways, while cloud functions are more specifically single-purpose functions that respond to some event and perform some specific action.
App Engine offers numerous choices of language, and more management options, while cloud functions are limited in those areas.
You could easily replicate Cloud Functions on App Engine, but replicating a large scale App Engine application using a bunch of discrete Could Functions would be complicated. For example, the backend of Spotify is App Engine based.
Another way to put this is that for a significantly large application, starting with a more complex system like App Engine can lead to a codebase which is less complex, or at least, easier to manage or understand.
Ultimately these both run on similar underlying infrastructure at Google, and it's up to you to decide which one works for the task at hand. Furthermore, There is nothing stopping you from mixing elements of both in a single project.
Google Cloud Functions are simple , single purpose functions which are fired while watching event(s).
These function will remove need to build your own application servers to handle light weight APIs.
Main use cases :
Data processing / ETL : Listen and respond to Cloud Storage events, e.g. File created , changed or removed )
Webhooks : Via a simple HTTP trigger, respond to events originating from 3rd party systems like GitHub)
Lightweight APIs : Compose applications from lightweight, loosely coupled bits of logic
Mobile backend: Listen and respond to events from Firebase Analytics, Realtime Database, Authentication, and Storage
IoT: Thousands of devices streaming events and which in-turn calls google cloud functions to transform and store data
App Engine is meant for building highly scalable applications on a fully managed serverless platform. It will help you to focus more on code. Infrastructure and security will be provided by AE
It will support many popular programming languages. You can bring any framework to app engine by supplying docker container.
Use cases:
Modern web application to quickly reach customers with zero config deployment and zero server management.
Scalable mobile backends : Seamless integration with Firebase provides an easy-to-use frontend mobile platform along with the scalable and reliable back end.
Refer to official documentation pages of Cloud functions and App Engine
As both Cloud Functions and App Engine are serverless services, this is what I feel.
For Microservices - We can go either with CF's or App Engine. I prefer CF's though.
For Monolithic Apps - App engine suits well.
Main differentiator as #Cameron points out, is that cloud functions reliably respond to events. E.g. if you want to execute a script on a change in a cloud storage bucket, there is a dedicated trigger for cloud functions. Replicating this logic would be much more cumbersome in GAE. Same for Firestore collection changes.
Additionally, GAE’s B-machines (backend machines for basic or manual scaling) have conveniently longer run times of up to 24 hours. Cloud functions currently only run for 9 minutes top. Further, GAE allows you to encapsulate cron jobs as yamls next to your application code. This makes developing a server less event driven service much more clean.
Of course, the other answers covered these aspects better than mine. But I wanted to point out the main advantages of Cloud Functions being the trigger options. If you want functions or services to communicate with each other, GAE is probably the better choice.
I was wondering what the difference between App Engine & Compute Engine are. Can anyone explain the difference to me?
App Engine is a Platform-as-a-Service. It means that you simply deploy your code, and the platform does everything else for you. For example, if your app becomes very successful, App Engine will automatically create more instances to handle the increased volume.
Read more about App Engine
Compute Engine is an Infrastructure-as-a-Service. You have to create and configure your own virtual machine instances. It gives you more flexibility and generally costs much less than App Engine. The drawback is that you have to manage your app and virtual machines yourself.
Read more about Compute Engine
You can mix both App Engine and Compute Engine, if necessary. They both work well with the other parts of the Google Cloud Platform.
EDIT (May 2016):
One more important distinction: projects running on App Engine can scale down to zero instances if no requests are coming in. This is extremely useful at the development stage as you can go for weeks without going over the generous free quota of instance-hours. Flexible runtime (i.e. "managed VMs") require at least one instance to run constantly.
EDIT (April 2017):
Cloud Functions (currently in beta) is the next level up from App Engine in terms of abstraction - no instances! It allows developers to deploy bite-size pieces of code that execute in response to different events, which may include HTTP requests, changes in Cloud Storage, etc.
The biggest difference with App Engine is that functions are priced per 100 milliseconds, while App Engine's instances shut down only after 15 minutes of inactivity. Another advantage is that Cloud Functions execute immediately, while a call to App Engine may require a new instance - and cold-starting a new instance may take a few seconds or longer (depending on runtime and your code).
This makes Cloud Functions ideal for (a) rare calls - no need to keep an instance live just in case something happens, (b) rapidly changing loads where instances are often spinning and shutting down, and possibly more use cases.
Read more about Cloud Functions
Basic difference is that Google App Engine (GAE) is a Platform as a Service (PaaS) whereas Google Compute Engine (GCE) is an Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS).
To run your application in GAE you just need to write your code and deploy it into GAE, no other headache. Since GAE is fully scalable, it will automatically acquire more instances in case the traffic goes higher and decrease the instances when traffic decreases. You will be charged for the resources you really use, I mean, you will be billed for the Instance-Hours, Transferred Data, Storage etc your app really used. But the restriction is, you can create your application in only Python, PHP, Java, NodeJS, .NET, Ruby and **Go.
On the other hand, GCE provides you full infrastructure in the form of Virtual Machine. You have complete control over those VMs' environment and runtime as you can write or install any program there. Actually GCE is the way to use Google Data Centers virtually. In GCE you have to manually configure your infrastructure to handle scalability by using Load Balancer.
Both GAE and GCE are part of Google Cloud Platform.
Update: In March 2014 Google announced a new service under App Engine named Managed Virtual Machine. Managed VMs offers app engine applications a bit more flexibility over app platform, CPU and memory options. Like GCE you can create a custom runtime environment in these VMs for app engine application. Actually Managed VMs of App Engine blurs the frontier between IAAS and PAAS to some extent.
To put it simply: compute engine gives you a server which you have full control/responsibility for. You have direct access to the operating system, and you install all the software that you want, which is usually a web server, database, etc...
In app engine you don't manage the operating system of any of the underlying software. You only upload code (Java, PHP, Python, or Go) and voila - it just runs...
App engine saves tons of headache, especially for inexperienced people but it has 2 significant drawbacks:
1. more expensive (but it does have a free quota which compute engine doesn't)
2. you have less control, thus certain things are just not possible, or only possible in one specific way (for example saving and writing files).
Or to make it even simpler (since at times we fail to differentiate between GAE Standard and GAE Flex):
Compute Engine is analogous to a virtual PC, where you'd deploy a small website + database, for instance. You manage everything, including control of installed disk drives. If you deploy a website, you're in charge of setting up DNS etc.
Google App Engine (Standard) is like a read-only sandboxed folder where you upload code to execute from and don't worry about the rest (yes: read-only - there are a fixed set of libraries installed for you and you cannot deploy 3rd party libraries at will). DNS / Sub-domains etc are so much easier to map.
Google App Engine (Flexible) is in fact like a whole file system (not just a locked down folder), where you have more power than the Standard engine, e.g. you have read/write permissions, (but less compared to a Compute Engine). In the GAE standard, you have a fixed set of libraries installed for you and you cannot deploy 3rd party libraries at will. In the Flexible environment, you can install whatever library your app depends on, including custom build environments (such as Python 3).
Although GAE Standard is very cumbersome to deal with (although Google makes it sound simple), it scales really well when put under pressure. It's cumbersome because you need to test and ensure compatibility with the locked-down environment and ensure any 3rd party library you use does not use any other 3rd party library you're unaware of which may not work on GAE standard. It takes longer to set it up in practice but can be more rewarding in the long run for simple deployments.
In addition to the App Engine vs Compute Engine notes above the list here also includes a comparison with Google Kubernete Engine and some notes based on experience with a wide range of apps from small to very large. For more points see the Google Cloud Platform documentation high level description of features in App Engine Standard and Flex on the page Choosing an App Engine Environment. For another comparison of deployment of App Engine and Kubernetes see the post by Daz Wilkin App Engine Flex or Kubernetes Engine.
App Engine Standard
Pros
Very economical for low traffic apps in terms of direct costs and
also the cost of maintaining the app.
Auto scaling is fast. Autoscaling in App Engine is based on
lightweight instance classes F1-F4.
Version management and traffic splitting are fast and convenient. These features are built into App Engine (both Standard and Flex) natively.
Minimal management, developers need focus only on their app.
Developers do not need to worry about managing VMs in a reliable, as
in GCE, or learning about clusters, as with GKE.
Access to Datastore is fast. When App Engine was first released, the runtime was co-located with Datastore. Later Datastore was split out
as the standalone product Cloud Datastore but the co-location of App Engine Standard serving with Datastore remains.
Access to Memcache is supported.
The App Engine sandbox is very secure. Compared with development on
GCE or other virtual machines, where you need to do your own
diligence to prevent the virtual machine from being taken over at the
operating system level, the App Engine Standard sandbox is relatively
secure by default.
Cons
Generally more constrained than other environments Instances are
smaller. Although this is good for rapid autoscaling, many apps can
benefit from larger instances, such as GCE instance sizes up to 96
cores.
Networking is not integrated with GCE
Cannot put App Engine behind a Google Cloud Load Balancer. Limited to
supported runtimes: Python 2.7, Java 7 and 8, Go 1.6-1.9, and PHP
5.5. In Java, there is some support for Servlets but not the full J2EE standard.
App Engine Flex
Pros
Can use a custom runtime
Native integration with GCE networking
Version and traffic management is convenient, same as Standard
The larger instance sizes may be more suitable to to large complex applications, especially Java applications that can use a lot of memory
Cons
Network integration is not perfect - no integration with internal load balancers or Shared Virtual Private Clouds
Access to managed Memcache not generally available
Google Kubernetes Engine
Pros
Native integration with containers allows custom runtimes and greater
control over cluster configuration.
Embodies many best practices working with virtual machines, such as immutable runtime environments and easy ability to roll back to previous versions
Provides a consistent and repeatable deployment framework
Based on open standards, notably Kubernetes, for portability between clouds and on-premises.
Version management can accomplished with Docker containers and the
Google Container Registry
Cons
Traffic splitting and management is do-it-yourself, possibly
leveraging Istio and Envoy
Some management overhead
Some time to ramp up on Kubernetes concepts, such as pods, deployments, services, ingress, and namespaces
Need to expose some public IPs unless using Private Clusters, now in beta, eliminate that need but you still need to provide access to
locations where kubectl commands will be run from.
Monitoring integration not perfect
While L3 internal load balancing is supported natively on Kubernetes Engine, L7 internal load balancing is do-it-yourself, possibly leveraging Envoy
Compute Engine
Pros
Easy to ramp up - no need to ramp up on Kubernetes or App Engine,
just reuse whatever you know from previous experience. This is
probably the main reason for using Compute Engine directly.
Complete control - you can leverage many Compute Engine features
directly and install the latest of all your favorite stuff to stay on
the bleeding edge.
No need for public IPs. Some legacy software may be too hard to lock
down if anything is exposed on public IPs.
You can leverage the Container-Optimized OS for running Docker
containers
Cons
Mostly do-it-yourself, which can be challenging to do adequately for
reliability and security, although you can reuse solutions from
various places, including the Cloud Launcher.
More management overhead. There are many management tools for Compute Engine but they will not necessarily understand how you have deployed your application, like the App Engine and Kubernetes Engine monitoring tools do
Autoscaling is based on GCE instances, which can be slower than App
Engine
Tendency is to install software on snowflake GCE instances, which can
be some effort to maintain
As explained already Google Compute Engine (GCE) is the Infrastructure as a service (IaaS) while Google App Engine (GAE) is Platform as a Service (PaaS). You can check the following diagram to understand the difference in a better way (Taken from and better explained here) -
Google Compute Engine
GCE is an important service provided from Google Cloud Platform (GCP) since most of the GCP services use GCE instances (VMs) beneath the management layer (not sure which one don't). This includes App Engine, Cloud Functions, Kubernetes Engine (Earlier Container Engine), Cloud SQL, etc. GCE instances are the most customisable unit there and thus should only be used when your application can't run on any other GCP services. Most of the time people use GCE to transfer their On-Prem applications to GCP, since it requires minimal changes. Later, they can choose to use other GCP services for separate component of their apps.
Google App Engine
GAE is the first service offered by GCP (Long before Google came to the cloud business). It autoscales from 0 to unlimited instances (It uses GCE underneath). It comes with 2 flavors Standard Environment and Flexible Environment.
Standard Environment is really fast, scales down to 0 instance when no-one is using your app, scales up and down in seconds and have dedicated Google services and libraries for caching, authentication etc. The caveat with Standard environment is that it is very restrictive since it runs in a sandbox. You have to use managed runtimes for specific programming languages only. The recent additions are Node.js (8.x) and Python 3.x. The older runtimes are available for Go, PHP, Python 2.7, Java etc.
Flexible Environment is more open as it allows you to use custom runtimes as it uses docker containers. Thus if your runtime is not available in the provided runtimes, you can always create your own dockerfile for the execution environment. The caveat with it is, it requires having at least 1 instance running, even if no-one is using your app, plus the scaling up and down requires few minutes.
Don't confuse GAE flexible with Kubernetes Engine, as the later one uses actual Kubernetes and provides much more customisation and features. GAE Flex is useful when you want stateless containers and your application rely on HTTP or HTTPS protocols only. For other protocols Kubernetes Engine (GKE) or GCE is your only choice. Check my other answer for better explanation.
If you're familiar with other popular services:
Google Compute Engine -> AWS EC2
Google App Engine -> Heroku or AWS Elastic Beanstalk
Google Cloud Functions -> AWS Lambda Functions
I'll explain it in a way that made sense to me:
Compute Engine: If you are do-it-yourself person or have an IT team and you just want to rent a computer on cloud that has specific OS (for example linux), you go for the Compute Engine. You have to do everything by yourself.
App Engine: If you are (for example) a python programmer and you want to rent a pre-configured computer on cloud that has Linux with a running web-server and the latest python 3 with necessary modules and some plug-ins to integrate with other external services, you go for the App Engine.
Serverless Container (Cloud Run): If you would like to deploy the exact image of your local setup environment (for example: python 3.7+flask+sklearn) but you do not want to deal with server, scaling, etc. You create a container on your local machine (through docker) and then deploy it to Google Run.
Serverless Microservice (Cloud Functions): If you want to write bunch of APIs (functions) that do specific job, you go for google Cloud Functions. You just focus on those specific functions, the rest of the job (server, maintenance, scaling, etc.) is done for you in order to expose your functions as microservices.
As you go deeper, you lose some flexibility but you are not worried about unnecessary technical aspects. You also pay a little more but you save time and cost (IT part): someone else (google) is doing it for you.
If you want to not care about load balancing, scaling, etc., it is crucial to split your app to bunch of "stateless" web services that writes anything persistent in a separate storage (database or blob storage). Then you will found how awesome is Cloud Run and Cloud Functions.
Personally, I found Google Cloud Run an awesome solution, absolute freedom in development (as long as stateless), expose it as a web service, docker your solution, deploy it with Cloud Run. Let google be your IT and DevOps, you do not need to care about scaling and maintenance.
I have tried all other options and each one is good for different purpose but Google Run is just awesome. To me, it is the real serverless without losing flexibility in development.
Google Compute Engine (GCE)
Virtual Machines (VMs) hosted in the cloud. Before the cloud, these were often called Virtual Private Servers (VPS). You'd use these the same way you'd use a physical server, where you install and configure the operating system, install your application, install the database, keep the OS up-to-date, etc. This is known as Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS).
VMs are most useful when you have an existing application running on a VM or server in your datacenter, and want to easily migrate it to GCP.
Google App Engine
App Engine hosts and runs your code, without requiring you to deal with the operating system, networking, and many of the other things you'd have to manage with a physical server or VM. Think of it as a runtime, which can automatically deploy, version, and scale your application. This is called Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS).
App Engine is most useful when you want automated deployment and automated scaling of your application. Unless your application requires custom OS configuration, App Engine is often advantageous over configuring and managing VMs by hand.
App Engine gives developers the ability to control Google Compute Engine cores, as well as provide a web-facing front end for Google Compute Engine data processing applications.
On the other hand, Compute Engine offers direct and complete operating system management of your virtual machines. To present your App, you're going to need resources, and Google Cloud Storage is ideal for storing your assets and data, whatever they're used for. You get fast data access with hosting around the globe. Reliability is guaranteed at a 99.95% up-time, and Google also provides the ability to back up and restore your data, and believe it or not, storage is unlimited.
You can manage your assets with Google Cloud Storage, storing, retrieving, displaying, and deleting them. You can also quickly read and write to flat datasheets that are kept in Cloud Storage. Next in the Google Cloud lineup is BigQuery. With BigQuery, you can analyze massive amounts of data, we're talking millions of records, within seconds. Access is handled via a straightforward UI, or a Representational State Transfer, or REST interface.
Data storage is, as you might suspect, not a problem, and scales to hundreds of TB. BigQuery is accessible via a host of client libraries, including those for Java, .NET, Python, Go, Ruby, PHP, and Javascript. A SQL-like syntax called NoSQL is available which can be accessed through these client libraries, or through a web user interface. Finally, let's talk about the Google Cloud platform database options, Cloud SQL and Cloud Datastore.
There is a major difference. Cloud SQL is for relational databases, primarily MySQL, whereas Cloud Datastore is for non-relational databases using noSQL. With Cloud SQL, you have the choice of either hosting in the US, Europe, or Asia, with 100 GB of storage, and 16 GB of RAM per database instance.
Cloud Datastore is available at no charge for up to 50 K read/write instructions per month and 1 GB of data stored also per month. There is a fee if you exceed these quotas, however. App Engine can also work with other lesser known, more targeted members of the Google Cloud platform, including the Cloud Endpoints for creating API backends, Google Prediction API for data analysis and trend forecasting, or the Google Translate API, for multilingual output.
While you can do a fair amount with App Engine on its own, It's potential skyrockets when you factor in its ability to work easily and efficiently with its fellow Google Cloud platform services.
The cloud services provides a range of options from fully managed to less managed services. Less managed services gives more control to the developers. The same is the difference in Compute and App engine also. The below image elaborate more on this point
App Engine is a virtual server.
Compute Engine - it's like a full server.
I recently had to realize a project on Google AppEngine. At the beginning I was sceptic. But there a some really nice approaches on Appengine:
No server setup. Everything works out of the box. Gzip, libraries, etc.
One-Click-Deployment. Fire up GAE Launcher on the Mac and click DEPLOY. Done.
Low costs
Easy in-production-logging
But there are some things I don't like if I'm thinking about professional projects
The blobstore. It's just... weird. And non-backupable
All the 1 MB restrictions
The feeling that your code will only run on AppEngine. (BigTable)
Do you know any similar alternatives to AppEngine? And I don't mean services like EC2.
You can have a look at AppScale
Its an open-source implementation of AppEngine which you can deploy on your own machines, with a host of databases to choose from.
I think Heroku is a great alternative.
It can run most of GAE existing apps, since it supports django, but also:
It supports Ruby (w or w/o Rails), Java (w or w/o Spring), Node.js, Clojure,...
It has a strong CLI support (git push for publishing, creation of apps, scaling, log, ps,...)
It supports MySql and PostgreSQL (and, so on, MongoDB, Amazon RDS, etc.)
It has a free tier for 750 hours a month (~1 machine always up) for every app.
It has a collection of addons for providing cloud services as a resources for the apps
It has an add-on program to develop your own add-ons.
Really, it is a good alternative.
If you want your application is not binded to GAE, the best approach is to use well-known langs and well-known persistence providers. Ruby+PostgreSQL, for instance, could be a combination very portable. Django as well, but w/o BigTable...
AppScale and TyphoonAE are both third-party implementations of the App Engine platform. TyphoonAE is targeted at small-to-medium scale, while AppScale is targeted at the large-scale end of things.
As far as backing up the blobstore goes, this is quite doable: just use the built in handler to serve blobs, and, in conjunction with remote_api, you can download your blobs just fine.
I almost hate to mention Microsoft in a Google-related question, but I'm completely vendor-agnostic. So, I'll offer Microsoft's Azure as a platform that offers many similarities to AppEngine but enough differences that it might fit as a good answer to your question.
Azure and AppEngine are similar in that they are both designed to allow you to build easily scalable applications. Azure gives you Microsoft's standard web toolkit options: C#, VB.NET, ASP.NET ASP.NET MVC, but also offers PHP. It has a NoSQL, document database like AppEngine but also gives you the option of choosing a more standard instance of SQL Server. Although I haven't used it myself, it looks like AppEngine for Business now offers SQL, too.
Azure gives you a ready means of having long-running background processes. AppEngine does not to the best of my knowledge.
From my perspective, AppEngine has the huge advantage of charging you for usage only when a request is actually being processed. An Azure instance causes you to get billed even for time that it is completely idle. That's entirely typical, but the fact that Google doesn't so it that way makes me choose AppEngine every time. My budget is too tight to allow me to spend money for idle CPU hours.
There's a port of django to non-relational databases that works with app engine or mongodb.
google for django non-rel
documentation is a bit sparse though
may i know how portability is gae application. let say i have an
application that using comet feature, task queue..etc and not using
bigtable and i want to deploy on vmware/amazon will it run?
No. Google App Engine and Amazon Cloud Services have different APIs.
Many of the concepts are similar; it would certainly be possible to port many applications between the two and achieve similar functionality - but you'd have to modify a lot of code. If you have a lot of data stored in one system, you'd have to write custom code to export it from that system and import it into the other, too.
AppScale is designed for this kind of portability.
AppScale is a platform that allows
users to deploy and host their own
Google App Engine applications. It
executes automatically over Amazon EC2
and Eucalyptus as well as Xen and KVM.
It has been developed and is
maintained by the RACELab at UC Santa
Barbara. It supports both the python
and java Google App Engine platforms.
Can't say for sure if it's something that will work for you but it's probably worth looking into.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
What alternatives are there to GAE, given that I already have a good bit of code working that I would like to keep. In other words, I'm digging python. However, my use case is more of a low number of requests, higher CPU usage type use case, and I'm worried that I may not be able to stay with App Engine forever. I have heard a lot of people talking about Amazon Web Services and other sorts of cloud providers, but I am having a hard time seeing where most of these other offerings provide the range of services (data querying, user authentication, automatic scaling) that App Engine provides. What are my options here?
AppScale
AppScale is a platform that allows users to deploy and host their own Google App Engine applications. It executes automatically over Amazon EC2 and Eucalyptus as well as Xen and KVM. It has been developed and is maintained by AppScale Systems. It supports the Python, Go, PHP, and Java Google App Engine platforms.
http://github.com/AppScale/appscale
In the mean time...
...it is amost 2015 and it seems that containers are the way to go forward. Alternatives to GAE are emerging:
Google has released Kubernetes, container scheduling software developed by them to manage GCE containers, but can be used on other clusters as well.
There are some upcoming PaaS on Docker such as
http://deis.io/
http://www.tsuru.io/
even Appscale themselves are supporting Docker
Interesting stuff to keep an eye on.
I don't think there is another alternative (with regards to code portability) to GAE right now since GAE is in a class of its own. Sure GAE is cloud computing, but I see GAE as a subset of cloud computing. Amazon's EC2 is also cloud computing (as well as Joyent Accelerators, Slicehost Slices), but obviously they are two different beasts as well. So right now you're in a situation that requires rethinking your architecture depending on your needs.
The immediate benefits of GAE is that its essentially maintenance free as it relates to infrastructure (scalable web server and database administration). GAE is more tailored to those developers that only want to focus on their applications and not the underlying system.In a way you can consider that developer friendly. Now it should also be said that these other cloud computing solutions also try to allow you to only worry about your application as much as you like by providing VM images/templates. Ultimately your needs will dictate the approach you should take.
Now with all this in mind we can also construct hybrid solutions and workarounds that might fulfill our needs as well. For example, GAE doesn't seem directly suited to this specific app needs you describe. In other words, GAE offers relatively high number of requests, low number of cpu cycles (not sure if paid version will be any different).
However, one way to tackle this challenge is by building a customized solution involving GAE as the front end and Amazon AWS (EC2, S3, and SQS) as the backend. Some will say you might as well build your entire stack on AWS, but that may involve rewriting lots of existing code as well. Furthermore, as a workaround a previous stackoverflow post describes a method of simulating background tasks in GAE. Furthermore, you can look into HTTP Map/Reduce to distribute workload as well.
As of 2016, if you're willing to lump PaaS (platform as a service) and FaaS (function as a service) in the same serverless computing category, then you have a few FaaS options.
Proprietary
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda lets you run code without provisioning or managing servers. You pay only for the compute time you consume - there is no charge when your code is not running. With Lambda, you can run code for virtually any type of application or backend service - all with zero administration. Just upload your code and Lambda takes care of everything required to run and scale your code with high availability. You can set up your code to automatically trigger from other AWS services or call it directly from any web or mobile app.
AWS Step Functions complements AWS Lambda.
AWS Step Functions makes it easy to coordinate the components of distributed applications and microservices using visual workflows. Building applications from individual components that each perform a discrete function lets you scale and change applications quickly. Step Functions is a reliable way to coordinate components and step through the functions of your application. Step Functions provides a graphical console to arrange and visualize the components of your application as a series of steps. This makes it simple to build and run multi-step applications. Step Functions automatically triggers and tracks each step, and retries when there are errors, so your application executes in order and as expected. Step Functions logs the state of each step, so when things do go wrong, you can diagnose and debug problems quickly. You can change and add steps without even writing code
Google Cloud Functions
As of 2016 it is in alpha.
Google Cloud Functions is a lightweight, event-based, asynchronous compute solution that allows you to create small, single-purpose functions that respond to cloud events without the need to manage a server or a runtime environment. Events from Google Cloud Storage and Google Cloud Pub/Sub can trigger Cloud Functions asynchronously, or you can use HTTP invocation for synchronous execution.
Azure Functions
An event-based serverless compute experience to accelerate your development. It can scale based on demand and you pay only for the resources you consume.
Open
Serverless
The Serverless Framework allows you to deploy auto-scaling, pay-per-execution, event-driven functions to any cloud. We currently support Amazon Web Service's Lambda, and are expanding to support other cloud providers.
IronFunctions
IronFunctions is an open source serverless computing platform for any cloud - private, public, or hybrid.
It remains to seen how well FaaS competes with CaaS (container as a service). The former seems more lightweight. Both seem suited to microservices architectures.
I anticipate that functions (as in FaaS) are not the end of the line, and that many years forward we'll see further service abstractions, e.g. test-only development, followed by plain-language scenarios.
Alternatives:
1. AppScale
2. Heroku.
Ref: Alternative for Google AppEngine?
Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud or EC2 is a good option. You basically run Linux VMs on their servers that you can control via a web interface (for powering up and down) and of course access via SSH or whatever you normally set up...
And as it's a linux install that you control, you can of course run python if you wish.
Microsoft Windows Azure might be worth consideration. I'm afraid I haven't used it so can't say if it's any good and you should bear in mind that it's a CTP at the moment.
Check it out here.
A bit late, but I would give Heroku a go:
Heroku is a polyglot cloud application platform. With Heroku, you
don’t need to think about servers at all. You can write apps using
modern development practices in the programming language of your
choice, back it with add-on resources such as SQL and NoSQL databases,
Memcached, and many others. You manage your app using the Heroku
command-line tool and you deploy code using the Git revision control
system, all running on the Heroku infrastructure.
https://www.heroku.com/about
You may also want to take a look at AWS Elastic Beanstalk - it has a closer equivalence to GAE functionality, in that it is designed to be PaaS, rather than an IaaS (i.e. EC2)
If you're interested in the cloud, and maybe want to create your own for production and/or testing you have to look at Eucalyptus. It's allegedly code compatible with EC2 but open source.
I'd be more interested in seeing how App Engine can be easily coupled with another server used for CPU intensive requests.
TyphoonAE is trying to do this. I haven't tested it, but while it is still in beta, it looks like it's atleast in active development.
The shift to cloud computing is happening so rapidly that you have no time to waste for testing different platforms.
I suggest you trying out Jelastic if you are interested in Java as well.
One of the greatest things about Jelastic is that you do not need to make any changes in the code of your application, except the changes for your application functionality, but not for the reason the chosen platform demands this. With reference to this you do not actually waste your time.The deployment process is just flawless, and you can deploy your .war file anywhere further.Using GAE requires you to modify the app around their system needs. In case if you happen to get working with Java and start looking for a more flexible platform, Jelastic is a compatible alternative.
You can also use Red Hat's Cape Dwarf project, to run GAE apps on top of the Wildfly appserver (previously JBoss) without modification.
You can check it out here:
http://capedwarf.org/