ToDo: Restore Rarbg HTTP 200 Rate Limiting [Waiting on Rarbg] #736

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-02-20 10:02:53 -05:00 by deekerman · 1 comment

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 10:02:53 -05:00

Owner

Originally created by @bakerboy448 on GitHub (Jan 2, 2023).

Is there an existing issue for this?

I have searched the existing open and closed issues

Restore HTTP 200 & rate_limit 1 as too many requests.

reverted github.com/Prowlarr/Prowlarr@5cc044aa8f (diff-bd56c63a21)

Due to false positive rate_limit of 1 with 200s when no rate limit was actually occurring (results were found)

awaiting internal fix from rarbg for false positive

Describe the solution you'd like

if the API returns 200 with a json that contains rate_limit 1 retry in 5 minutes
https://github.com/Prowlarr/Prowlarr/issues/1169

Describe alternatives you've considered

N/A

Anything else?

N/A

AB#4613

Originally created by @bakerboy448 on GitHub (Jan 2, 2023). ### Is there an existing issue for this? - [X] I have searched the existing open and closed issues ### Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe Restore HTTP 200 & rate_limit 1 as too many requests. reverted https://github.com/Prowlarr/Prowlarr/commit/5cc044aa8fbc7ba62d9c32442d8125b9b347d28a#diff-bd56c63a2154391186c3916be78aa2c0b6de3dca774930b0a4cb99b29d1b8425L46 Due to false positive rate_limit of 1 with 200s when no rate limit was actually occurring (results were found) awaiting internal fix from rarbg for false positive ### Describe the solution you'd like `if the API returns 200 with a json that contains rate_limit 1 retry in 5 minutes` https://github.com/Prowlarr/Prowlarr/issues/1169 ### Describe alternatives you've considered N/A ### Anything else? N/A [AB#4613](https://dev.azure.com/Servarr/7ab38f4e-5a57-4d70-84f4-94dd9bc5d6df/_workitems/edit/4613)

deekerman

2026-02-20 10:02:53 -05:00

closed this issue
added the
Area: Indexer

Type: External Bug

Type: Regression
labels

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 10:02:55 -05:00

Author

Owner

@bakerboy448 commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2023):

for posterity and context in the future

there are multiple levels of late limiters
cloudflare -> web -> code

when rated limited cloudflare will return http code 429 with a json encoded string that includes rate limit 1
when rated limited web returns http code 444 to cloudflare which returns 520 on cloudflare , there is no way to send 429 to cloudflare without it breaking the request properly and retrying it
when rated limited code returns http code 200 with rate_limit 1

rate_limit : 1 is generally returned when you've exceeded the rate limit or when one of the many servers behind cloudflare is being overloaded - because cloudflare doesn't evenly redistribute requests equally its there so clients via api can see that they are rate limited , retry in lets say 5 seconds and they can get their request fullfilled on another backend ( cloudflare doesn't do stickiness ) in x time

Originally posted by rarbg in https://github.com/Jackett/Jackett/issues/13663#issuecomment-1288190301

@bakerboy448 commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2023): for posterity and context in the future > there are multiple levels of late limiters > cloudflare -> web -> code > > when rated limited cloudflare will return http code 429 with a json encoded string that includes rate limit 1 > when rated limited web returns http code 444 to cloudflare which returns 520 on cloudflare , there is no way to send 429 to cloudflare without it breaking the request properly and retrying it > when rated limited code returns http code 200 with rate_limit 1 > > rate_limit : 1 is generally returned when you've exceeded the rate limit or when one of the many servers behind cloudflare is being overloaded - because cloudflare doesn't evenly redistribute requests equally its there so clients via api can see that they are rate limited , retry in lets say 5 seconds and they can get their request fullfilled on another backend ( cloudflare doesn't do stickiness ) in x time _Originally posted by rarbg in https://github.com/Jackett/Jackett/issues/13663#issuecomment-1288190301_