Holy....
Thanks, Chad. :) On Aug 13, 4:58 pm, Chad Etzel <c...@twitter.com> wrote: > Hi There, > > What you all have been confirming is correct. The intended behavior is > 20k per IP unauthenticated, and 20k per IP *per user* authenticated. > This is not a bug. > > -Chad > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Abraham Williams<4bra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've been reading "I have confirmed" emails from 5 different threads for the > > last 2 weeks. Can we hold off until Chad gets back to us with an official > > answer. :) > > > Thanks > > Abraham > > > 2009/8/13 Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> > > >> Craig, > > >> I just ran a test, and I can also confirm what you have found. > > >> Unauthenticated calls decrease per IP 20,000 > >> Authenticated calls decrease per-IP per-user 20,000 > > >> Dewald > > >> On Aug 13, 4:27 pm, CaMason <stasisme...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > The behaviour at the moment is definitely as-described above: > > >> > Unauthenticated calls decrease IP 20,000 > >> > Authenticated calls decrease per-user 20,000 > > >> > My app only uses authenticated calls during normal use, and the IP- > >> > based limit isn't decreasing at-all > > >> > 20,000 per-user is pretty silly - With 1000 users, I would be allowed > >> > to make 5,555 calls per second. > > >> > A max of say 500 authenticated calls per-user would be more sensible, > >> > and would allow apps with many users to scale :) > > >> > -Craig > > > -- > > Abraham Williams | Community Evangelist |http://web608.org > > Hacker |http://abrah.am|http://twitter.com/abraham > > Project |http://fireeagle.labs.poseurtech.com > > This email is: [ ] blogable [x] ask first [ ] private.
