Elliot Temple wrote:
> James Britt wrote:
> 
>> No, first consider the people hosting the content you're snarfing.
>> 
>> They're footing the bill for bandwidth and hosting.
>> 
>>> ... FYI the images total
>>> about 112 megs. There's 3691 of them.
>>> 
>> 
>> And not a single "sleep" in the script.  Nice.
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> It's a good thing I posted. I will remember to put a sleep next time. 
> Thank you.

Oh. How much sleep is best? One second per image would add an hour to 
the script run time. I don't have a sense of how much is needed. 5 
seconds? .5 seconds? Is requests per time or volume of data per time 
more important to limit?

- Elliot
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.