Asklemmy

43796 readers

855 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

189

How are we going to pay for all this? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by psylancer to c/[email protected]

205 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm really enjoying lemmy. I think we've got some growing pains in UI/UX and we're missing some key features (like community migration and actual redundancy). But how are we going to collectively pay for this? I saw an (unverified) post that Reddit received 400M dollars from ads last year. Lemmy isn't going to be free. Can someone with actual server experience chime in with some back of the napkin math on how expensive it would be if everyone migrated from Reddit?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't believe this is how it works though.

Let's say your tiny 3 person instance is connected to a big one. I believe it only pulls in content from the communities somebody from the small instance is subscribed too. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's what they're saying.

Essentially - if someone from the small instance subscribes to a community that has a ton of data (huge post volume, images, whatever), the small instance needs to pull data over from the larger instance. At some point there may be communities that are so large small instances can't pull them in without tanking.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wonder if there is a way to get around this? maybe smaller instances will have to be text-only?

[–] ShadowAether 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could that be solved by caching? Can't the smaller instance avoid some duplication?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

If I'm reading the protocol right, it's probably larger instances that will avoid more duplication, since:

There's a higher chance they're going to have more communities shared among users (for really tiny instances you're probably going to get a lot of overlap since those people likely have interconnected interests, but I expect that would fall off quickly, but then converge at scale).
The larger number of users will mean they 'use' more of the content they're pulling down (I can't read all of a highly active community in a day, but 1000 people together checking through the day might 'use' it all).

I'm not sure I see where you see caching fitting in.
I am surprised I don't see some kind of lower resolution digest concept in the protocol (which might be what you're looking for)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

maybe I phrased that poorly and you didn't understand what I was trying to say. The size of the bigger instance shouldn't matter at all because only data from communities is pulled, that a member of the smaller instance is subscribed to. So if the bigger instance has 1000 members or 2 million members wouldn't make a difference. The only thing relevant should be how active the communities are that members are subscribed to.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, the sizes of the communities is what matters (multiplied by the number of communities users on the server care about).
I think most of us are assuming larger instances are more likely to host the larger communities.

Actually, if I'm reading the protocol right, it'd be hard for a small server to host a highly active community anyway (for some value of highly active). So yes, some 2 person instance that was created to offload stuff could be the primary host for a massive community, but in practice it won't.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We are arguing about very specific things here anyway. And I generally do share your concerns about how well this is going to scale. I want this to do well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed 100%

[–] flambonkscious 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's what I've gathered, but I don't believe there's a way for instance owners to limit what's fetched - a user crafts the query and the server does the needful.

I imagine this could amount to a denial of service attack of sorts, if some high-churn communities are imported into tiny instances. How bad that could be, I have no idea - I'm speaking pretty theoretically, here. Text is tiny, after all, so it's probably not much of a concern, since most of the media is actually handled elsewhere...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not a web developer. I'm sort of a sysadmin so i have some experiences maintaining machines for web apps for other people. And you are right...text will not create massive amounts of data. But a lot of tiny transactions can bring down machines surprisingly fast even if the total amount of data is relatively small.

I guess we are here to experience it first hand. I don't think anybody...not even the developers have a clear idea of how well this will scale. There is only one way to find out lol