O uploader de backup em blocos excede o limite de taxa de requisições do Discourse

zogstrip · Setembro 8, 2026, 8:03am

obrigado pelo relato @RGJ será corrigido por

github.com/discourse/discourse

FIX: Retry rate limited backup upload chunks (#43373)

feature/rate-limit-client-helpers ← fix/retry-rate-limited-backup-chunks

opened 07:57AM - 08 Sep 26 UTC

ZogStriP

+247 -53

Stacked on #43372. Fixes the report in https://meta.discourse.org/t/chunked-back…up-uploader-exceeds-discourse-request-rate-limit/411386. Uploading a local backup through the admin UI fails outright on a fast connection. The uploader sends one POST per chunk, so throughput alone decides the request rate, and a large backup over a quick link trips the per-user request limiter. The server answers 429 and the upload dies, discarding however many gigabytes had already been sent. There is no resume, so a retry starts from chunk 1. `_shouldRetry` allowed status 0, 409, 423 and 5xx. That list came from uppy's S3 multipart plugin, where it is correct — S3 does not answer 429 with a `Retry-After`. Discourse does, so the one status worth retrying was the one treated as fatal, and none of the four configured retry delays was ever consumed. ### Why three changes and not one Adding 429 to the allowlist alone makes it worse. The limiters run in aggressive mode, so a rejected request re-arms the window; retrying on the existing sub-second ladder turns a fast failure into a permanent block. Measured against a persistent 429 on a 6-chunk file: | | POSTs of the failing chunk | |---|---| | allowlist only | 15 in 10s, still fails | | \+ honour `Retry-After` | 6 | | \+ keep the chunk reserved | 2 — correct | The third is needed because clearing `busy` before rejecting let every sibling completion re-pick the same chunk and start a second retry chain that POSTed immediately, defeating the backoff. ### Latent defects fixed alongside - Registering the abort listener called `xhr.abort()` immediately and registered its return value, so aborting was a no-op and in-flight chunks kept running after a failure was reported. - `chunkSize` was only assigned when no `getChunkSize` was supplied, so any caller providing one produced NaN bounds, a single empty chunk, and a silently truncated backup. - The pause plumbing called a method the class never defined; nothing could reach it, so it is gone. The chunk-size ladder S3 multipart has used since #22061 now also applies here, moving the trip point from roughly 140 to 560 Mbit/s so most sites stop reaching the limiter at all. ### Not a regression from the Uppy migration Worth recording, since the linked topic asks. The 2021 report predates Uppy becoming the default backup uploader by two days — that reporter was on Resumable.js, which classified 429 as retryable but retried immediately, up to 100 times, against a limiter that was already aggressive. 429 has never been survivable here. What the port changed was the failure mode, from slow-and-noisy to instant-and-silent. The capability actually lost was resume, which this PR does not restore.

Tópico		Respostas	Visualizações
Backup uploads are not protected against 429s Bug backups	2	186	30 de Junho de 2025
Rate limiter issues when uploading a backup file / can't disable rate limiter Self-hosting	4	899	31 de Março de 2022
Error 404 when uploading a backup Support	2	489	18 de Maio de 2018
Increase chunksize for Discourse backups using Scaleway S3 Support backups , s3	0	61	14 de Janeiro de 2025
Backup uploads hang at 2% complete Support backups	1	1528	5 de Fevereiro de 2015

O uploader de backup em blocos excede o limite de taxa de requisições do Discourse

Tópicos relacionados