Hi Dewald, I asked "The Powers That Be" about it, and that was the response I got. However, I am double and triple checking because that does sound too good to be true :)
-Chad On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Dewald Pretorius<dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Chad, > > Are you 100% sure of that? > > I mean, in terms of rate limiting that simply does not make sense. > > For my site, TweetLater.com, it would mean I have an effective hourly > rate limit, per IP address, of 2 BILLION IP GET calls per hour! > (20,000 per user for 100,000 users). > > It sounds wrong to me. > > Dewald > > On Aug 6, 1:37 pm, Chad Etzel <c...@twitter.com> wrote: >> Hi Inspector Gadget, er... Bob, >> >> Yes, the current whitelisted IP rate-limit allows 20k calls per hour >> *per user* on Basic Auth or OAuth or a combination thereof. >> >> Go, go gadget data! >> >> -Chad >> Twitter Platform Support >> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Robert Fishel<bobfis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Well it seems as though Twitter is saying that 20k calls per user is >> > the intended functionality. Chad or someone else can you confirm this? >> >> > Also if the correct functionality is 20k per ip per hour will you then >> > fail over to 150 per user per hour or is it cut off? >> >> > Thanks >> >> > -Bob >> >> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Dewald Pretorius<dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Bob, >> >> >> Don't base your app on the assumption that it is 20,000 calls per hour >> >> per user. >> >> >> You get 20,000 GET calls per whitelisted IP address, period. It does >> >> not matter if you use those calls for one Twitter account or 10,000 >> >> Twitter accounts. >> >> >> If the API is currently behaving differently, then it is a bug. >> >> >> I have had discussions with Twitter engineers about this, and the >> >> intended behavior is an aggregate 20,000 calls per whitelisted IP >> >> address as I mentioned above. >> >> >> Dewald >> >> >> On Aug 6, 4:09 am, Robert Fishel <bobfis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Wowzers (bonus points for getting the reference) >> >> >>> It appears as if each user does get 20k (according to the linked >> >>> threads) this is I think what they intended and makes apps a LOT >> >>> easier to develop as you can now do rate limiting (ie caching and >> >>> sleeping etc...) based on each user and not on an entire server pool, >> >>> makes sessions much cleaner. >> >> >>> I am whitelisted and I'll test this tomorrow evening to make double >> >>> sure but this sounds great!. >> >> >>> Thanks >> >> >>> -Bob >> >> >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:53 AM, srikanth >> >> >>> reddy<srikanth.yara...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > With a whitelisted IP you can make 20k auth calls per hour for each >> >>> > user. >> >>> > Once you reach this limit for a user you cannot make any auth calls >> >>> > from >> >>> > that IP in that duration. But the user can still use his 150 limit from >> >>> > other apps. >> >> >>> >http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread... >> >> >>> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Bob Fishel <b...@bobforthejob.com> >> >>> > wrote: >> >> >>> >> From the Rate Limiting documentation: >> >> >>> >> "IP whitelisting takes precedence to account rate limits. GET requests >> >>> >> from a whitelisted IP address made on a user's behalf will be deducted >> >>> >> from the whitelisted IP's limit, not the users. Therefore, IP-based >> >>> >> whitelisting is a best practice for applications that request many >> >>> >> users' data." >> >> >>> >> Say for example I wanted to simply replicate the twitter website. One >> >>> >> page per user that just monitors for new statuses with authenticated >> >>> >> (to catch protected users) calls to >> >>> >>http://twitter.com/statuses/friends_timeline.json >> >> >>> >> Say I was very popular and had 20k people on the site. Would this >> >>> >> limit me to 1 call per minute per user or would it fall over to the >> >>> >> user limit of 150 an hour once I hit my 20k? If so how can I tell it >> >>> >> has fallen over besides for simply keeping track of the number of >> >>> >> calls per hour my server has made. >> >> >>> >> Thanks >> >> >>> >> -Bob >
