Linuxduck@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 2 年前Rule, nail in coffinlemmy.blahaj.zoneexternal-linkmessage-square94fedilinkarrow-up1589arrow-down10
arrow-up1589arrow-down1external-linkRule, nail in coffinlemmy.blahaj.zoneLinuxduck@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 2 年前message-square94fedilink
minus-squareThurstylark@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·2 年前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.
minus-squarecatastrophicblues@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 年前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.
minus-squareThurstylark@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-22 年前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.
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.