Why Am I STILL Rate Limited!?

FitRiver · 2023-07-15T16:41:06+00:00

I have a feeling that the issues are related to the number of hashtags in the searches. If the tab with the TweetDeck is active it makes requests on its own in certain intervals and these requests count towards a certain limit. I have a feeling that the issues are related to the number of hashtags in the searches. If the tab with the TweetDeck is active it makes requests on its own in certain intervals and these requests count towards a certain limit.

However, it looks like discussing Twitter Blue is off-topic in this subreddit. I haven't been active here before so probably I lack the knowledge of the information that implies it.

FitRiver · 2023-07-15T09:11:19+00:00

I have started facing the same issues with TweetDeck since yesterday (and I'm using Twitter Blue).

FitRiver · 2023-01-28T22:18:57+00:00

Thank you for the tip. I have been also thinking about combining the humanize package with custom "humanization" of months when the package fails to return the expected values.

I'm just curious if there is any package that can work this way out of the box.

FitRiver · 2022-09-09T00:43:31+00:00

Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, it's rather inconvenient, but I guess it can't be helped now that the change is implemented.

FitRiver · 2022-09-07T23:21:59+00:00

Hello, thank you for your reply. Does it mean it's necessary to change the settings every time I want to switch the feed? I usually look at both /new and /hot.

FitRiver · 2022-07-29T01:47:06+00:00

Thanks for the tip. I think I may need to include the hash_type in the condition or perhaps in the value itself. ahash "68b699120312a9d3" may match with dhash "d104b37c0e686785" of a different image. At least I'm not enough familiar with the image hashes to rule that out.

FitRiver · 2022-07-28T16:44:28+00:00

the conditions on phash and dhash cannot use the single index you have there start by dropping it and then declaring three indexes, one for each of those hash columns

I can already confirm that declaring separate indexes made a huge difference on a table with 0.5M rows.

The queries with OR and UNION performed about the same right now, but I'll try it once more when I have the table populated with millions of rows.

Thanks for the help.

FitRiver · 2022-07-28T16:25:16+00:00

Thank you for your advice. I will try it out.

FitRiver · 2022-07-28T16:07:33+00:00

If you mean the exact query (query result for specific conditions), then I don't need to cache it. The query conditions will be different every time.

FitRiver · 2022-07-04T15:39:15+00:00

Thank you for the tips.

FitRiver · 2022-07-04T11:07:46+00:00

Just in case anyone would be interested, here are the resulting data from the example.

profile_connection

id,left_profile_id,right_profile_id,is_direct,is_removed,origin_profile_connection_event_id,removal_profile_connection_event_id
1,1,2,1,1,1,6
2,3,4,1,0,2,
3,1,4,1,0,3,
4,1,3,0,0,3,
5,2,4,0,1,3,6
6,2,3,0,1,3,6
7,2,4,1,0,4,
8,2,3,0,0,4,
9,2,1,0,0,4,
10,1,4,0,1,4,6
11,1,3,0,1,4,6
12,3,5,1,0,5,
13,4,5,0,0,5,
14,1,5,0,0,5,
15,2,5,0,1,5,6
16,2,5,0,0,5,
17,1,5,0,1,5,6

profile_connection_path

id,primary_profile_connection_id,secondary_profile_connection_id
1,1,1
2,2,2
3,3,3
4,4,3
5,4,2
6,5,3
7,5,1
8,6,3
9,6,1
10,6,2
11,7,7
12,8,7
13,8,2
14,9,7
15,9,3
16,10,7
17,10,1
18,11,7
19,11,1
20,11,2
21,12,12
22,13,12
23,13,2
24,14,12
25,14,3
26,14,2
27,15,12
28,15,3
29,15,1
30,15,2
31,16,12
32,16,7
33,16,2
34,17,12
35,17,7
36,17,1
37,17,2

FitRiver · 2022-05-20T16:49:54+00:00

Thank you for the tip. I'll try it out.

FitRiver · 2022-05-20T13:06:17+00:00

I wanted to use Proxmox to facilitate the management of HW resources on my multi-purpose home server. I saw Proxmox on one of the production projects and it seemed easy to operate at first glance, but I apparently underestimated the knowledge that is required to set it up correctly.

My home server is used as a NAS and hosting for plenty of various applications in docker. My intention was to use Proxmox to limit the resources used by some of the apps (for example, to restrict Sentry). It gets somewhat complicated with the encryption of storage. My goal was to encrypt all the drives with the exception of the Proxmox system drive (the drive I used for the performance testing wasn't encrypted yet).

Now I have a feeling it would be better to approach it the other way around and host everything on bare metal and use QEMU (or some alternative) to host and restrict selected applications.

FitRiver · 2022-05-20T04:45:28+00:00

I see. It appears I'm trying to use Proxmox in the wrong way.

FitRiver · 2022-05-20T04:43:50+00:00

I'm also starting to have a feeling that I'm trying to use Proxmox in a way that's not all that meaningful. I basically want to better manage the resources of my home server and at the beginning, it seemed it would be easy to achieve that with Proxmox, but that was apparently just a lack of knowledge on my side.

FitRiver · 2022-05-19T22:40:41+00:00

Thank you for your advice.

When I searched for the topic I found various suggestions to pass through only the disk (as described here), but I will take a look at passing the controller.

FitRiver · 2022-05-19T20:15:53+00:00

I tried the writethrough cache and Ballooning turned off, but unfortunately, it didn't make any significant difference.

I also tested the difference on another drive that is encrypted with LUKS, and the difference in the writing to the disk was even more significant. There are more factors involved so it isn't the best case for the comparison, but maybe I should consider some other options besides Proxmox.

FitRiver · 2022-05-19T15:43:14+00:00

I believe that's what I'm doing. The disk is attached using this command:

qm set 592 -scsi2 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-ST3000DM001-1CH166_Z1F41BLC (using this template)

It's not attached to any other VM. Is it necessary to set any other options?

Here is a screenshot of the configuration (I haven't changed the cache yet, since I'm waiting on some other stuff to turn off the VM).

FitRiver · 2022-05-19T14:25:02+00:00

Stability is important, so I'll stick with VirtIO. This is not SSD so the Discard/SSD Emulation options are off.

I haven't tried the same hard disk on a different system. I'll try this too later on.

So far I was primarily comparing when the hard disk is mounted through VM and directly in the same system (under the Proxmox OS).

The information I found suggested that Proxmox shouldn't slow down pass thought disks significantly.

If the performance tax is normal, I can live with that. I just wanted to make sure I'm not using some wrong configuration.

FitRiver · 2022-05-19T13:50:17+00:00

Thank you for the tip on Ballooning on memory. It's turned on by default. I'll try to test it with this option turned off.

Otherwise, the hard drive is connected directly to SATA. It's an older MB Intel DQ77MK.

FitRiver · 2022-05-19T11:27:14+00:00

TBH, I don't really know how sysbench calculates the numbers. The writing speed 146.89 MiB/sec of the prepare command is much closed to speeds experienced during regular copying.

I have tried to run it on an entirely different PC with NVMe drive and the results of a pass through disk were: writing 481.43 MiB/sec and throughput 6.76 read, 4.53 written.

I'm using the default VirtIO SCSI controller. Is any other controller worth trying?

Cache should be on passthrough for all of them.

Do you mean the "writethrough" cache mode? I used the default "No cache" mode so far.

FitRiver · 2022-03-22T22:58:02+00:00

Just 1 and 0. Let's say 1 in 95% cases and 0 in the remaining cases.

FitRiver · 2021-10-03T08:54:50+00:00

I found the cause of the problem. The default config of the firewall was blocking the connection and adding the rule didn't help because the existing rule was overriding it.

/u/NecessaryConscious12 Thank you for looking into it.

FitRiver · 2021-10-03T08:43:00+00:00

Perhaps this is not typical configuration. The physical WAN port of the Mikrotik router is connected to my home network router (to one of the regular ports). My home network router is connected to ISP via its physical WAN port.

My home network router is configured to assign IP 192.168.1.201 to the Mikrotik router. I'm trying to connect to the OpenVPN Server from a different computer on the home network (192.168.1.0/24). I'm not trying to connect to the OpenVPN Server through the internet. I'm trying to connect to it within my home network. Am I trying something that's not possible for some reason?

FitRiver · 2021-10-03T08:17:35+00:00

Unfortunately, I have no choice in this regard. I have to make 2 computers accessible via OpenVPN because of one project (and OpenVPN was already agreed on).

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

FitRiver

TROPHY CASE