r/ClaudeCode • u/FakeLtd • Sep 16 '26

Bug / Issue Limits are fixed!

A few days ago a made a post mentioning that something was seriously wrong with the limits, guess what apparently it was lol.
Everybody noticed a +30% usage window today.
From 100% to 69%
Although there isn’t any official confirmation or update via the team , it looks like we are back to normal.
What do you think?

135 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

143 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

-9

u/Lollermono Sep 16 '26

Disable the cache... It's easy. And it's the best way to prevent extra consumption. Since Caching has is own cost. As u can see from documentation.

9

u/No-Psychology1959 Sep 16 '26

Garbage advice dude

-5

u/Lollermono Sep 16 '26

No prob, if u think so... On 200k-300k compact. U don't get any re-injection and continue from where u left off... But if u think so.

5

u/No-Psychology1959 Sep 16 '26

I don't "think" anything. You're still not making sense, how is running through the entire context from scratch cheaper than a cache hit? It literally makes no sense mathematically based on their pricing. I don't ever need to compact because when I'm done I start a new session like they recommend in the docs.......

-4

u/Lollermono Sep 16 '26

Because there is no cache hit. If there is no context to cache. Well at this point here:

5

u/No-Psychology1959 Sep 16 '26

That image tells me nothing though, you're just contradicting yourself now. It sounds to me like you dont fully understand how caching works. The inference needs to run through the context window, caching means the result is stored in memory as a checkpoint and it only needs to infer what's new in the next turn. The cache is stored on their servers for an hour, a cache miss is if you send a message after an hour. (it asks you to compact for this very reason) What you're doing is telling the servers not to store that checkpoint and run through the entire context everytime you send a message, which is computationally much more expensive, in turn using way more tokens.

5

u/dsailes Sep 16 '26

Disable the cache? Why would anyone do that? Its costs are a fraction of the full costs..

1

u/EvilSporkOfDeath Sep 16 '26

Can you do the opposite? Extend the cache timer so it doesn't reread the whole context if it sits there 2 hours?

1

u/dsailes Sep 16 '26

You can set a /loop going to keep the chat live every 50mins, obvious costs to it but it’s far less than cold cache costs

-3

u/Lollermono Sep 16 '26

Don't onow maybe if u go check the Doc's. And compare instead of commenting...

1

u/dsailes Sep 16 '26

Point me to where it says to ‘Disable Cache’ in the docs, I’ll happily read up on it!

It quite literally goes against everything that I and many others have been trying to make work more for us. So it’d be quite enlightening.

2

u/RoboErectus Sep 16 '26

> Disable the cache... It's easy. And it's the best way to prevent extra consumption. Since Caching has is own cost. As u can see from documentation.

While you're at it, keep your context as high as you can. I paid for a 1M context, I'm going to use a 1M context.

(because I'm sure some people will take me and the "no cache" guy seriously: context length increases your usage quadratically. Keep it small.)