I think it was the 'poll less frequently' that was throwing us all off. Glad to hear it was just a sanity check going...insane.
-David On Apr 16, 4:01 pm, Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This error check has always existed in the search code, but most > people never see it. This is a sanity check on the since_id parameter > to prevent people using ones in the future. The problem yesterday was > specifically that several back-ends fell behind. If you hit an up-to- > date back-end and collected a max_id, then hit an out-of-date back-end > it would complain that you were using a since_id in the future from > its perspective. We've corrected most of the back-ends but we have a > few more upgrades this evening to fix the last few. Sorry for the > delayed reply but I need to focus on fixing and not email. > > Thanks; > — Matt Sanford / @mzsanford > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 03:01 AM, @Jalada wrote: > > > > > > > Dittoing Cameron here, Twitterfall isn't seeing it any more, though it > > was practically disabling us last night and I was getting concerned, > > because I slowed things down greatly but to no avail, and I thought > > I'd missed some update about it. > > > The HTTP status code was 403 IIRC. > > > Another +1 for wondering what triggers the error. > > > -David > > > On Apr 16, 4:02 am, Chad Etzel <jazzyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ditto. It seemed completely random to me. I know I was way under > >> the > >> search rate-limit. I haven't seen it lately either. > > >> +1 for wondering what exactly throws this error? > > >> -Chad > > >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Cameron Kaiser > >> <spec...@floodgap.com> wrote: > > >>>>> Cameron, Chad, and the Tweetfall duo pinged me this afternoon to > >>>>> let me > >>>>> know there is a new error cropping up from the search API. The > >>>>> error text is > >>>>> "since_id too recent, poll less frequently". > > >>>> What HTTP status code is associated with this error? Any hint > >>>> for how long > >>>> to wait before retries? Or is that dynamic? > > >>> The problem is that I'm not seeing it anymore, and I never got a > >>> good handle > >>> on what exactly caused it to trip. For example, you would think > >>> thrashing it > >>> with reloads would hit it every time, and it wasn't. I got reports > >>> from > >>> TTYtter users about it under intermittent circumstances and then > >>> suddenly > >>> they evapourated. > > >>> But if there's a simple condition I can use to determine when not > >>> to send a > >>> query, I'll gladly add it (i.e., what is 'too recent'). > > >>> -- > >>> ------------------------------------ > >>> personal:http://www.cameronkaiser.com/-- > >>> Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems *www.floodgap.com* > >>> ckai...@floodgap.com > >>> -- Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Plastic Surgeons-Toolmakers > >>> Union Ltd. -
