# Tuning high-volume site 429 Errors on message bus--should I worry? **URL:** \ **Category:** Self-hosting\ **Created:** [November 19, 2020, 6:13pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/tuning-high-volume-site-429-errors-on-message-bus-should-i-worry/170651 "2020-11-19T18:13:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 5
**Author:** ![pfaffman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/pfaffman/32/120154_2.png) [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 9:27pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/tuning-high-volume-site-429-errors-on-message-bus-should-i-worry/170651/5 "2020-11-19T21:27:31Z")
Well, these machines, that I got for free, **are** getting a little long in the tooth, so I’m starting to come to terms with that–the single CPU performance still seems better than a DO droplet, though. If solving the problem with money in the short term were an option, then I’d likely not have this particular client who wants enterprise performance at business prices. 😉 But I also see that I had the number of unicorns hard-coded somewhere else in the chain, so I’m still running only 3. Sadly, my current configuration, only talks to docker on the one host. I should spend a bit more time and see if I can stick a couple unicorns on the other machine too, though. Probably about time to look at HAproxy again, but I’ve got another project that I really want to get launched first. Thanks very much for your insight. EDIT: And when I finally moved to 5 unicorns rather than 3, the performance graphs look about the same (but maybe a tiny bit slower?), but the 429 errors dropped significantly. It looks like once the image processing is done, this is going to work just fine. 😌 --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/tuning-high-volume-site-429-errors-on-message-bus-should-i-worry/170651)._