this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
86 points (97.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43974 readers
2005 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!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I already get rate-limited like crazy on lemmy and there are only like 60,000 users on my instance. Is each instance really just one server or are there multiple containers running across several hosts? I’m concerned that federation will mean an inconsistent user experience. Some instances many be beefy, others will be under resourced… so the average person might think Lemmy overall is slow or error-prone.

Reddit has millions of users. How the hell is this going to scale? Does anyone have any information about Lemmy’s DB and architecture?

I found this post about Reddit’s DB from 2012. Not sure if Lemmy has a similar approach to ensure speed and reliability as the user base and traffic grows.

https://kevin.burke.dev/kevin/reddits-database-has-two-tables/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Bigger instances will indeed run multiple copies of the various components, it's pretty standard software in that regard.

Usually at first that will start by moving the PostgreSQL database to its own dedicated box, and then start adding additional backend boxes, possibly adding more caching in front so that the backend doesn't have to do as much work. Once the database is pegged, the next step is usually a write primary and one or more read secondaries. When that gets too much, you get into sharding so that you can spread the database load across multiple servers. I don't know much about PostgreSQL but I have to assume it's better than MySQL in that regard and I've seen a 1 TB MySQL database in the wild running just fine.

I think lemmy.world in general is hitting some scalability issues that they're working on. Keep in mind the software is fairly new and is just being truely tested at large scale, there's probably a ton of room for optimization. Also lemmy.world is still on 0.17 and apparently 0.18 changed the protocol a lot in a way that makes it scale much better, so when they complete that upgrade it'll probably run a lot better already.


The part that worries me about scalability in the long term is the push nature of ActivityPub. My server is already getting several POST requests to /inbox per second already, which makes me wonder how that's gonna work if big instances have to push content updates to thousands of lemmy instances where most of the data probably isn't even seen. I was surprised it was a push system and not a pull system, as pull is much easier to scale and cache at the CDN level, and can be fetched on demand for people that only checks lemmy once in a while.

I need to start digging into Lemmy's code and get familiar with the internals, still only a couple days in with my private instance.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I don’t have a coding background but this was very informative. Thanks for sharing

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Poorly. Lemmy will scale poorly.

I won't be surprised if the larger instances start locking down more as a way to sustain themselves, like restricting communities or only allowing text posts.

[–] nyakojiru 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sometimes you have just to accommodate to the situation and keep going until it settles down. The error I think here is thinking something can’t have flaws and issues, even more if it’s not behind a corporations. And no one wants corporations.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It isn't about accommodating to the situation, but planning for long term growth.

Right now, instances of Lemmy don't have any way to fund server costs other than asking for donations. Outside of Wikipedia, that isn't a sustainable business model. How is Lemmy supposed to survive if, every time a sub gains critical mass, it shuts down?

[–] ritswd 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

planning for long-term growth

Which is part of any scaling effort, and you can’t really guess through predicting and resolving bottlenecks, it takes some serious expertise. And as far as I know, the Lemmy devs have never built a high-scale service before, and I think that is possibly the single biggest risk to the growth and success of the Lemmy project in general.

Source: that’s my job, I’ve been doing that for some of the most high-scale services in the world for about a decade. I absolutely could help, actually I’d love to, but I definitely won’t under current Lemmy leadership, for reasons: https://lemmy.world/comment/596235

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

I get the feeling that the development leadership is going to have to change, with either the current developers bringing on leadership that can manage the growth or someone forks Lemmy and that becomes the default. The current developer model, like the current admin monetization model, can't stand as is in its current form.

[–] ritswd 1 points 1 year ago

That is what I’m rooting for. Alas I can imagine how they might cling to it, even if at the detriment of the project. Or not, I don’t particularly have any information. My fingers are crossed…

[–] V4uban 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It is not like any other social network has become sustainable business. Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, FB all are net losers with all trials with and selling user data.

We can safely say that after almost 20 we still don't have sustainable business model for soc networks.

Let's try with donations.

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

Wouldn't that create a natural balance though? A large instance starts struggling so people are incentivised to move to smaller instances or start new instances and so spread the load more evenly. That's how it would scale. I'm surprised how many of the larger instances haven't closed signups yet but that wouldn't be a bad thing if they did.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The issue isn't on the user end, but the sub end since that is where all the data is stored.

So, according to your proposal, the best thing a sub should do when it is getting popular is to go private with its existing subscribers and any new people who want to participate should go create their own sub in a different instance.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nyakojiru 1 points 1 year ago

Sometimes you have just to accommodate to the situation and keep going until it settles down. The error I think here is thinking something can’t have flaws and issues, even more if it’s not behind a corporations. And no one wants corporations.

[–] nyakojiru 1 points 1 year ago

Sometimes you have just to accommodate to the situation and keep going until it settles down. The error I think here is thinking something can’t have flaws and issues, even more if it’s not behind a corporations. And no one wants corporations.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

Education probably. Back in the day people didn't have any problem understanding that different forums had different capabilities. When MMOs were in full swing, people didn't have problems understanding what being on thr popular server during peak hours meant.

Everyone has just gotten too used to centralization with a lot of money behind it. Eventually people will adjust their expectations. Even if Meta's fediverse attempt takes off, there are always going to be niche communities that exist outside of those spheres, so if people want that, they'll have to move.

The point of the fediverse is having a choice. Some people are going to chose megacorp of the week's offering and that's okay as long a little pockets exist for when people get mad at the megacorp. Also federation leaves space for multiple dominant platforms in a way the current system doesn't.

In short, eventually some instances are going to be bankrolled either through a robust crowdcourcing effort or through being a company. That's okay. The purpose of the fediverse is to allow for smaller niche ideas to be able to breathe without having to adhere to one group's ideals. "If you don't like it, make your own" is a fair statement now

[–] marsara9 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lemmy is entirely open source, so you can see what their architecture looks like, etc.. here: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy.

Rate limits, as I understand them from the code, should only apply on a per-IP basis. So you should only be seeing rate limit errors if:

  • your behind a CGNAT and multiple people who use your ISP are using Lemmy
  • you're sending A LOT of requests to your instance yourself
  • the admin of your instance has significantly lowered the rate limits (viewable here: /api/v3/site)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not an expert, but I thought the issue was generally that big instances like lemmy.world were getting overloaded on the server side, not that they were enforcing a manufactured rate limit on individual IPs.

Also, someone else mentioned that on the fediverse even simple things like an upvote are slower and require more work here than in centralized platforms because they must be sent to all the instances that are indexing that user/community. As I understand, that's inherent to the fediverse, a bug not a feature, designed for redundancy and resilience.

Again uninformed, but Lemmy seems like it should scale fine. Bigger instances will monetize, driving prospective users to smaller instances, and then rate limiting and server lag won't be so bad anymore.

[–] marsara9 2 points 1 year ago

I’m not an expert, but I thought the issue was generally that big instances like lemmy.world were getting overloaded on the server side, not that they were enforcing a manufactured rate limit on individual IPs.

From what I can see it's both. lemmy.world and others are getting overloaded, but there is an inherit built-in rate-limit in the code itself. You can see what those limits are via the api/v3/site. Now in theory if you're actually getting rate-limited you should be seeing HTTP 429 responses from the server. If the server is just overloaded, you'll get a 5xx response, the request will just timeout or at best you'll still get a response but after a significant delay (what most people are seeing).

Also, someone else mentioned that on the fediverse even simple things like an upvote are slower and require more work here than in centralized platforms because they must be sent to all the instances that are indexing that user/community. As I understand, that’s inherent to the fediverse, a bug not a feature, designed for redundancy and resilience.

I don't want to comment on this too much as I'm not an expert here, but here's how federation / ActivityPub works from what I understand looking at the code:

Whenever you take any action (or activity) your browser will first send that message to your instance. If your instance then owns the community that message is then propagated out to EVERY linked instance listed here: /instances / api/v3/federated_instances. If your instance doesn't own the community, that message is forwarded off to the instance that does and they sent it out to EVERYONE on their federated instances list. As you can see this creates A LOT of network traffic.

This posing an interesting problem... the number of ActivityPub messages goes up as the number of instances increase. But at the same time as more and more users join a single instance that require that that instance send more and more traffic to individual user's browsers as they view and respond to posts. So the problem here is trying to find a good balance. And to top it off, the default behavior of most users is going to be to join the largest instances, making that instance incur more and more traffic to view content.

Again uniformed, but Lemmy seems like it should scale fine. Bigger instances will monetize, driving prospective users to smaller instances, and then rate limiting and server lag won’t be so bad anymore.

Will it though? How would an individual instance monetize? They would have to use donations. If an instance tries to add Ads, users will leave to an instance that doesn't, making it so that they don't get any income. They could charge a subscription fee, but again users would just leave and the admins get nothing.

The ideal configuration of the fediverse as I see it, is if we had two types of servers 1) content servers that only hosted communities but didn't have any real number of users, and 2) user servers that have no communities but most of the users. This way the number of API requests between instances is rather limited. When you end up with a server that has both most of the content and the userbase, the workload of that server appears to grow exponentially instead of linearly as the number of new instances rises.

[–] Iron_Lynx 15 points 1 year ago

My expectation, or at least hope, is that Lemmy will grow horizontally, i.e. more instances for more specialised content, instead of vertically, i.e. more communities in singular, larger instances. Since it's all federated, you can get to stuff in other instances.

I just had an idea. Let's compare reddit and lemmy as land use metaphors.

Reddit is like one monolithic megacity. It's full of communites, some big, encompassing entire neighbourhoods, and others smaller, having one street, one block, maybe even just one building.

Lemmy is like a country, with every instance a city. Some cities are big and varied, others are smaller and specialised, like ones dedicated entirely to fishing or aviation or being German. And you can choose a city to settle in and move between cities for your content. Some cities will be more open to sharing content with residents of other cities, and others will put up bigger restrictions. There are jokes about parts of the userbase on 4chan or Tumblr forming their own subcommunities, and the fediverse allows this in a very material way.

My expectation is that more cities may emerge as people develop more specialised communities. And since there are many cities, there is some resilience in the system. If an instance goes down, you've lost one instance. Out of christ knows how many. Chances are some of its content is duplicated across other instances, so nothing of value is lost. Meanwhile, if (/when) Reddit goes down, all of Reddit is gone.

In short, I hope lemmy develops more, smaller, specialised instances over time. Reddit allowed very niche insterests to have a corner, and despite that, I think the fediverse is more suited to allow for that than a centralised service.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

As far as I’m aware lemmy does not support load balancing or high availability as it currently stands. But development is still in its infancy and I’m sure that’s a top priority

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I mean it can….it’s just very DB heavy. It would be on an admin to scale up and scale out a single instance witb multiple dbs, replication etc.

It would be nice to be able to assign dbs to a task (ie: one for federation updates, one for local community posts, one to service web requests. There may be a way to do that already but I’m not aware, it may need to be in code.

Also syncing/federation across instances seems to be a mixed bag. And my instance will sometimes waste threads trying to sync with instances they have come and gone. As a result some communities id love to see updates on don’t come through.

Ideally they figure a way to continue to optimize federation and allow smaller instances to just pick up the load.

Mine is open, but I’m not getting any registration requests. I’m not upset about it but their main join page still seems to optimize for larger instances. It would make more sense to optimize for smaller ones to better distribute load. And focus dev work on better l/smoother syncing between federated instances.

Some locking down is a concern. I would love to see a lemmy of trust group if that came to pass. Where you can join the group and federate. My biggest concern with open federation is the legal risk of things like CSAM or CP getting synced onto your instances even if you have the nsfw box unchecked.

[–] ollie 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think it officially supports it but it does work! Lemmy.world is currently running on multiple containers load balanced by nginx. look at u/ruud latest post about it

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

It's not only about scaling a single instance, but scaling the fediverse.

Currently, each instance sends all events to all federated instances. That means, essentially each instance needs to store and process a significant part of the entire fediverse. That's insane and has to be addressed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, I run an instance, too. It's not big at all, but I was thinking about the issue of scaling, too. You can only scale up a single server so much...

But on the other hand, Lemmy is still young. We'll find solutions to that problem.

Also, interesting article. I only took a glance at it, but having only two tables kind of suggests that Reddit is using a relational database. So, if they're not "normalizing" everything, why not use a completely different paradigm, like what MogoDB etc. has?

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

The database isn't really the problem in the current state of things. The server is because:

  • Until 0.18 there was no caching (for the UI) and the poorly implemented websockets
  • The developers have admited that they aren't proficient in SQL, in which case, why not using an ORM instead? Sure, they aren't perfect but they will do better than the average developer at scale.
  • There is no queue system for activityPub requests
  • Because there is no queue, user requests and federation have the same priority when it shouldn't and one can bottleneck the other
  • Live inserts are used meaning that regardless of the DB used, performance is going to be killed since inserting data 1 at a time several times a second is a major waste of resource

Tl;dr: It's trying to do everything and not that well. So users suffer because they have to share resources with non-UI related tasks.

The database suffer because it has to do an insert of 1 object X 50 times in a second when it could do it once for all 50 items.

Federation suffers because you can't offload it to a seperate machine farm whose job will be to receive and send ActivityPub requests and send/read data from the correct queues to do so.

[–] BitOneZero 5 points 1 year ago

Federation also does a lot of live HTTP connects to other peers. It looks up users for messages. The whole design is very resource intensive, one single vote, comment, post at a time. There is also a lot of boilerplate JSON overhead in sending something as simple as a single vote.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

The way i see it the best way forward would be each community runs there own instance and what we now call communities should become subtopics of that community.

So for example. Asklemmy could be an instance and its members are all people who believe in the value of that instance and want to be involved in sustaining it.

Explainlikeiam5 could be a subcommunities of this instance because its philosophy is largely the same. If asklemmy has plenty of scientist members they could open a askscience subcommunity too.

The majority of user traffic would all come from other smaller homerun instances.

Big instances that try to be everything at once are a side effect of the massive growth we are experiencing, they work now but will slowly become more centralized and are therefore doomed to fail (in my opinion)

To recalculate. How can we help Lemmy grow? By being proactive users that maintain something small we chose to care about.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

60,000 users is also a LOT for a Lemmy instance. They've gone from ~8,000 to 60k+ in a matter of weeks. I'm sure there will be many performance and efficiency improvements coming soon. Hopefully people spread out a bit more across other instances with less users!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

It’s a challenge, for sure. It is known that there are some inefficiencies in the codebase, which are actively being worked on. But besides that, it’s tricky to know where bottlenecks are until the user influx happens, particularly with the novel federation architecture. Maybe it’s impossible to scale, maybe not, but we only now are seeing a testable use case. I would expect optimization work to start bearing fruit, but these thing take time.

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

Larger instances will have to monetize to stay afloat. I've gone so far as to buy a domain that is very appropriate for a business-oriented Lemmy instance (specifically for job hunting and career development), but don't yet have time or resources to take it to the next level.

[–] psilves1 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who says any instances need to grow?

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

I said 'afloat', and was specific about larger instances.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since Mastodon is using ActivityPub too. How it worked after Elon?

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

Mastodon is a couple years older than Lemmy, it was already a fairly mature product. People are thinking Lemmy is badly coded but we're all using a beta product with no user limits.

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

It'll scale horizontally, like E-mail. Lots of different servers operated by various entities. There may be some big players, like Outlook or Gmail, but overall there could be thousands of instances.

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

Pretty much everything but the database can be infinitely scaled. The database can be somewhat scaled by adding multiple read-only instances. But you're always going to reach a limit where throwing more resources at the write database gives diminishing returns. At that stage you need to shard to increase performance which can be done but it's a similar architecture to having multiple federated instances, so why not just spin up a new instance instead of growing an old one? Another way to lighten the load on instances is with efficient used of relays.

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

The single instances will probably have issues with scaling, especially the bigger ones. They should find a way to push potential users to sign up on other instances.

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

Maybe cap instances to a limit based on the number of active users after that you need to join another instance.

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

The ideal way that ActivityPub federation works IMO is a bunch of smaller nodes coming together to make a large network.

If you have a bunch of people all on one or two instances then you'll have a "central hub" of the network that's constantly overloaded.

That's my advice to community builders on this platform... Spread out across smaller instances, don't just all sign up to a big one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lemmy uses PostgreSQL, with a number of tables. It's pretty standard stuff, looks like, and it's in Rust. It's assumed there's only going to be one server per instance right now, but I'd expect that one server could keep up with a reasonable volume.

I already get rate-limited like crazy on lemmy and there are only like 60,000 users on my instance.

Is that a typical number of users to have already? Wow, we really are growing.

Rate limiting is it's own thing, I guess some work will need to be done to find a non-exploitable way to do it that still scales.

load more comments
view more: next ›