Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Nov-2022 02:29:16 JST Alexandre Oliva

   in reply to

   • Adam Dalliance
   both twister and ssb have p2p sharing of post journals among followers. twister even uses torrents for that.
   • Embed this notice
     Adam Dalliance (pre@boing.world)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Nov-2022 02:29:18 JST Adam Dalliance

     in reply to

     • ar.al?
     • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

     @rysiek @aral
     I agree we should have small instances, but that exasperates the problem if having to send a job for every server following you. Would mean sending more jobs to more small instances instead of one job to a big one.

     Some way to bit-torrent the data around the network may be important if we star to get people with hundreds of thousands of followers.

   • Embed this notice
     Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 (rysiek@mstdn.social)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Nov-2022 02:29:19 JST Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

     • ar.al?

     I was reading @aral 's blogpost about ActivityPub's scaling issues:
     https://ar.al/2022/11/09/is-the-fediverse-about-to-get-fryed-or-why-every-toot-is-also-a-potential-denial-of-service-attack/

     And that got me thinking: if the problem is that this post will generate one Sidekiq job *per server used by my followers*, would it not make sense to create "batch" Sidekiq jobs between popular servers that would put multiple actions in a single job?

     The overhead would go down. But I guess that would require a change in the spec.

     Also, yeah, we should use smaller instances.