128
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Averrin@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

Correct me if I'm wrong. I read ActivityPub standards and dug a little into lemmy sources to understand how federation works. And I'm a bit disappointed. Every server just has a cache and the ability to fetch something from another known server. So if you start your own instance, there is no profit for the whole network until you have a significant piece of auditory (e.g. private instances or servers with no users). Are there any "balancers" to utilize these empty instances? Should we promote (or create in the first place) a way how to passively help lemmy with such fast growth?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Demigodrick@lemmy.zip 29 points 2 years ago

This has definitely been a problem with communities being created on the bigger instances and not utilising smaller instances. Happy for someone to say I'm wrong etc, but I think there would be merit in capping instances to x number of users or communities, to force the user base to spread out.

Also, the way signups work, (ie you find a community you like then click sign up but that signs you up to that instance), further exacerbates the issue and the confusion around how federation works. The sign up links on each instance should lead either to a page with an instance finder, or to a random instance that matches the profile of, and is already federated with, the instance you were on. Otherwise the larger instances have a monopoly and are just going to lead to a bad user experience when they can't cope with the traffic.

It's a self defeating prophecy if users only want to sign up to the instances with the big communities, because then everyone is going to keep creating communities there and nobody is going to want to join a smaller instance.

I might be talking nonsense and am happy to be told why that is all wrong :)

[-] splitcircus@beehaw.org 11 points 2 years ago

Yes, there should be instance caps, and they should be visible to users.

That way users can scale, choose, without much thinking.

This same techinque works everywhere, for example MMO games. You have availability visible and choose servers according to it.

This would fix scaling partially without much technical changes.

[-] kspatlas@fedia.io 3 points 2 years ago

If that cap idea was to exist, it would make sense to have it based on the balance of users across the federated servers, so of there's enough with a similar amount it raises the cap

[-] Ataraxia@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I'm happy to use one of my other accounts but those instances aren't federated as largely as world. If I can look at all from any instance and choose what communities to avoid I would do that.

this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2023
128 points (89.5% liked)

Selfhosted

40565 readers
785 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS