Asklemmy

43958 readers

1274 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]

Do you think Federated networks are the future or do you think Peer to Peer networks are the future? Which do you think is better? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

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

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Alright so I'm not an expert so I might not be explaining it correctly.

Federated Network: Multiple instances sharing content, such as Lemmy

Peer to Peer Network: There is no "instances", just peers. Many peers sharing content. Every user is a peer. There is no server costs, because every device connected to the network is acting like a mini-server. It will cost your device some storage space and network bandwith depending on the how the software is designed.

Or do you think Centralized servers are still gonna dominate the future?

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Yeah I have serious concerns about how it will scale.

Luckily storage is the cheapest thing generally.

Maybe down the line they can start using varying degrees of cold storage for older content. Cheaper to store but more expansive to access.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Storage is cheap but most of the instance operators that are setting up right now aren't prepared for how much storage they're going to need and it's associate costs. I'm not talking the big boys like .World, but the hundreds of private and semi-private instances being set up on $12/mo VPS and such.

After 30 days of running my single user instance I'm at 23GB of storage. Since I'm using on prem equipment I have the lowest cost per GB possible and am not the least concerned. We're going to see a ton of attrition with hosted instances as the costs of ownership goes from 10, to 20, to 40, to $50+/mo. due to storage. Many aren't in anyway prepared to tackle the topic of moving PICTRS off to object storage or engage in other mitigations.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not worried. Text is tiny to store and any image posted remains on the source instance and is not duplicated, just linked.

[–] shrugal 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We could also just delete stuff after some time. Nobody really needs the 1000th repost of a meme from 20 years ago.

[–] demesisx 6 points 1 year ago

If they’re storing it right, it is content addressed, meaning that their servers are aware of duplicates because each file is hashed.