4 ms·
I think a factor is Feedburner scraped the URL every 4 hours. Thousands of readers all for 6 hits a day? Easy. With Reader the load was minimal, now that everyo
by ancarda 13y ago
I think a factor is Feedburner scraped the URL every 4 hours. Thousands of readers all for 6 hits a day? Easy. With Reader the load was minimal, now that everyone has splintered off the load could become astronomically higher due to inconsiderate configuration* and the lack of a centralised cache.
While Feedburner still exists, I doubt it'll be around for much longer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
* I acknowledge some used Thunderbird or other clients to access RSS, however the majority used Reader which made the load much lower.
Scraping every 15 minutes = 96 hits/user/day or other 'inconsiderate' options.
- teach 13y agoRSS is tiny and static. If your server can't handle a million hits a day to your RSS feed, you're doing it wrong.
- rogerbinns 13y agoFeedburner is a middleman that caches the real site's RSS feed. The readers (Google, Thunderbird, everyone else) contact feedburner for the RSS not the underlying site. RSS is also the same for every user (but doesn't have to be). In any event consider whether it is is desirable for readers to automatically know about site updates, and to be able to catch up if they have missed a few, versus expecting them to manually visit. Unfortunately we can't tell what the reason is behind the Dilbert change. It could range from a pre-emptive removal anticipating feedburner going away through some higher up deciding that the site is so important that people will manually visit instead. The only certain thing is they didn't have to make the change for technical reasons now. One thing I can be certain of is that anyone in a company defending the provision/use of RSS will have a lot harder time due to Reader going away.