Technology

37716 readers

350 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

Lemmy Federation Architecture Change Proposal (github.com)

submitted 1 year ago by xtremeownage@lemmyonline.com to c/technology@beehaw.org

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3245

I posted far more details on the issue then I am putting here-

But, just to bring some math in- with the current full-mesh federation model, assuming 10,000 instances-

That will require nearly 50 million connections.

Each comment. Each vote. Each post, will have to be sent 50 million seperate times.

In the purposed hub-spoke model, We can reduce that by over 99%, so that each post/vote/comment/etc, only has to be sent 10,000 times (plus n*(n-1)/2 times, where n = number of hub servers).

The current full mesh architecture will not scale. I predict, exponential growth will continue to occur.

Let's work on a solution to this problem together.

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

[–] xtremeownage@lemmyonline.com 2 points 1 year ago (14 children)

I am onboard with you there-

But, would not not agree- delegating and offloading those federation actions to a dedicated pool of servers, would not assist scalability?

That way- each instance doesn't need to maintain all of the connections?

[–] King@vlemmy.net 4 points 1 year ago (13 children)

There is no need to "maintain all of the connections". The server opens a connection, sends the data, then closes the connection.

[–] xtremeownage@lemmyonline.com 1 points 1 year ago (12 children)

I realize that....

Let's- set the record straight here.

Do you think the current implementation of federation works well?

[–] King@vlemmy.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe the current implementation wont scale because instances won't be able to handle every subscribed federated action. Having a hub server doesn't reduce the number of subscribed federated actions, only whom they come from.

[–] xtremeownage@lemmyonline.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But- if we take that action of handling the federations, and seperate it from the main application server(Allowing the main instance server to focus on handling its local user-base), and architect it in a way that allows scaling the number of proxy servers up and down-

Would that not sound like a big improvement to scalability?

[–] King@vlemmy.net 1 points 1 year ago

The node still needs to receive every subscribed federated action and insert it into the local database. This has to be local to the "main application server". Your proxy servers don't reduce the number of federated actions. It only reduces the number of servers needed to communicate with.

I feel that the bottleneck will be the total number of federated actions, not which servers deliver them.

load more comments (10 replies)