api: acl: bring limit for hackers down to 5 per node

[gioelecerati]

What does this pull request do? Explain your changes. (required)

Specific updates (required)

How did you test each of these updates (required)

Does this pull request close any open issues?

Screenshots (optional)

Checklist

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
livepeer-studio	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Feb 15, 2024 3:14pm

[pwilczynskiclearcode]

I'd change the variable name to MAX_ALLOWED_VIEWERS_FOR_HACKER_TIER_PER_NODE or comment that it's per-node value. It's not obvious in this context.

[pwilczynskiclearcode]

With this implementation lower limit is the only option. The problem is that with scaling up the number of nodes (like for Fishtank) we raise the global viewers limit for the hacker plan. Maybe it's acceptable for now.

Also with current 29 nodes. 29 * 5 = 145 which is quite high and still above our alert's thresholds

[gioelecerati]

With this implementation lower limit is the only option. The problem is that with scaling up the number of nodes (like for Fishtank) we raise the global viewers limit for the hacker plan. Maybe it's acceptable for now.

Also with current 29 nodes. 29 * 5 = 145 which is quite high and still above our alert's thresholds

Yes, until we have a catalyst shared state with the amount of viewers globally, this is the only space we have to move around.
I agree that 145 is high, but consider that playback would need to happen in all regions to reach that number, right?

[thomshutt]

I think that bringing this down makes sense - hopefully 5 per node is low enough that the system's not usable for people trying to abuse the free tier

[pwilczynskiclearcode]

@gioelecerati

I agree that 145 is high, but consider that playback would need to happen in all regions to reach that number, right?

Right. I guess that rate-limiting is done after geolocation... so if we reach the limit on a node we won't redirect viewer to another node.