0

I have ScriptA with some functions in files that have triggers that all run under UserA and consume about 2 hours of runtime per day.

I have another project ScriptB with some other functions in other files that have triggers that all run under UserA (the same user as ScriptB users) and consume about 3 hours of runtime per day.

Is my Trigger Aggregate Execution Time quota (from quota page here) aggregated per user or per script? That is, is it:

  1. Five hours (2 + 3) for UserA or is it
  2. Two hours for ScriptA and 3hrs for ScriptB?

I have seen this answer but it doesn't explicitly address the scoping question I'm asking.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Peter
  • 5,501
  • 2
  • 26
  • 42

2 Answers2

0

Obviously is per user not ler script. Otherwise quotas wouldnt make sense.

Zig Mandel
  • 19,571
  • 5
  • 26
  • 36
  • Have you actually tested? I don't agree that it is obvious. It's not easy to a script that continues the job of another one, therefore circumventing the quota. – Henrique G. Abreu Apr 01 '13 at 14:21
  • Havent tested it because im sure :) its conceptual . Its not about passing the job to another script (not hard) but about total cpu time consumed per user. Otherwise i can create 1000 scripts and consume 1000 times the quota . have YOU tested? :) – Zig Mandel Apr 04 '13 at 17:26
  • 1
    No, but I'm not making assumptions and answering another's doubt as if they were dumb. – Henrique G. Abreu Apr 04 '13 at 19:32
0

In the interests of getting some evidence together for this:

At 4m25 in this March 2013 episode of Google Apps Unscripted, Kalyan Reddy says that the quotas are "per account type" and as you can see in the dashboard, the Quota table is gridded and has columns labelled with those account types too.

I have also done some testing and made a script that uses quite a bit of time. It started to max out other scripts running under the same account and many of that account's triggered scripts started to get errors "Service using too much computer time for one day". But... interestingly, after a couple of days of those errors have subsided. I believe on a consumer account I am now getting way more execution time than 1 hr per day.

While not a direct answer to the question and still a leap of logic/assumption, these two things make me feel that "per account" is more likely to be correct than "per script". I'll keep the question open for a bit longer for any comments (esp Googlers).

Peter
  • 5,501
  • 2
  • 26
  • 42
  • Didnt mean to make it sound as a dumb question sorry. But besides being documented by google, like u said they publish it on the dashboard with totals by account. I insist this should be obvious otherwise quotas, intended to limit total dsily computing type to each user (ie account) would not make sense since again i can create a million scripts and end up using 1000000 hours of compute time instead of the allotted 1h. Doesnt make sense. – Zig Mandel Apr 18 '13 at 03:08