this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

40137 readers
627 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I have a domain name that I own but am not making use of and was thinking of setting up my own personal Lemmy instance, partly so I can have a Lemmy id and instance that I can completely control, partly so that I can contribute directly to my hosting cost, and partly because it might be fun to tinker with (or it might just end up being a pain; I'm still trying to figure out which is the case).

However, from this comment it sounds like, rather than contributing to horizontal scaling and easing the load on other servers, I might actually end up increasing the load on other servers by adding yet another server that the other servers have to talk to in order to keep my server updated on the latest comments and posts to which I am subscribed.

So given this, would self-hosting a personal instance actually make things worse for everyone else and thus be an irresponsible action at this time and/or for the foreseeable future? Because the last thing that I want to do is to inadvertently add a burden to the fediverse!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Marduk@hammerdown.0fucks.nl 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's been said here that accessing content from the large servers via a federation connection is less taxing on the servers than accessing them directly, so there's that.

[–] bakavic@latte.isnot.coffee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m thinking this would be the case if your instance had more than 1 user subscribed to that community in the large instance - but if it is just you, wouldn’t it be similar to accessing each instance and viewing the communities there?

No. Operations like removing blocked user comments, tracking your subscriptions themselves (showing only yours when you're on teh subscription tab), and tracking your sessions are all database heavy operations. You would be trading database heavy operations with "origin needs to send activity pub messages" to you. Activitypub messages were already being generated and is simply just also sent to you... it's very little network traffic and that's it.

As long as your instance views most content it receives at least once... you're well above par for doing your work to lighten the load on the origin server.

[–] bitcrafter@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

As I understand it, there are two kinds of costs that need to be considered: the cost of viewing content, and the cost of receiving content. The first is incurred every time you access your instance and is limited to your instance, whereas the latter is incurred every time something you've subscribed to has received an update, and is incurred not only by your instance but also by the server hosting the community. My concern is that, while hosting my own instance would reduce the load on other servers by absorbing the first kind of cost, it would also increase the load on other servers by increasing the second kind of cost.