Linuxduck@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 1 year agoRule, nail in coffinlemmy.blahaj.zoneexternal-linkmessage-square94fedilinkarrow-up1588arrow-down10
arrow-up1588arrow-down1external-linkRule, nail in coffinlemmy.blahaj.zoneLinuxduck@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square94fedilink
minus-squareThurstylark@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·1 year agoLess servers able to serve requests means either get overloaded and have downtime, or rate limit and stay up. Both are bad, but rate limiting is less bad.
minus-squarecatastrophicblues@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoI see, I guess at that scale API requests add up. I suppose it is a solution, and if replies don’t count, the limits are rather reasonable.
minus-squareThurstylark@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-21 year agoYeah, exactly. Also worth mentioning, the scale of Twitter also means that they have contractual obligations when it comes to uptime (for advertisers etc), so downtime could be very costly indeed.
Less servers able to serve requests means either get overloaded and have downtime, or rate limit and stay up.
Both are bad, but rate limiting is less bad.
I see, I guess at that scale API requests add up. I suppose it is a solution, and if replies don’t count, the limits are rather reasonable.
Yeah, exactly.
Also worth mentioning, the scale of Twitter also means that they have contractual obligations when it comes to uptime (for advertisers etc), so downtime could be very costly indeed.