Lemmy

12541 readers

45 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

nutomic@lemmy.ml

Hypothetically, if all lemmy users were on instances of a very small number (< 20), would this be better or worse for scaling? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by cyclohexane@lemmy.ml to c/lemmy@lemmy.ml

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And I guess this question is two parts: 1. Regarding the current lemmy implementation, and 2. The activityPub protocol in general

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

[–] 0xCAFE@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Speaking of scale only, bigger instances are certainly better. More and smaller instances increase the coordination overhead significantly (remember that your instance saves and serves a copy of any remote post. In the extreme case this means every server needs to have a copy of all other servers. Also, the more instances, the more peers each server has to ask for an update.

Many small instances have other benefits though, among them higher resillience and independence.

[–] UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

At the same time, don't smaller instances mean that they generally are making less copies of remote posts? Fewer users means that they'll only be subscribed / viewing a few posts.