My first experience with Lemmy was thinking that the UI was beautiful, and lemmy.ml (the first instance I looked at) was asking people not to join because they already had 1500 users and were struggling to scale.
1500 users just doesn’t seem like much, it seems like the type of load you could handle with a Raspberry Pi in a dusty corner.
Are the Lemmy servers struggling to scale because of the federation process / protocols?
Maybe I underestimate how much compute goes into hosting user generated content? Users generate very little text, but uploading pictures takes more space. Users are generating millions of bytes of content and it’s overloading computers that can handle billions of bytes with ease, what happened? Am I missing something here?
Or maybe the code is just inefficient?
Which brings me to the title’s question: Does Lemmy benefit from using Rust? None of the problems I can imagine are related to code execution speed.
If the federation process and protocols are inefficient, then everything is being built on sand. Popular protocols are hard to change. How often does the HTTP protocol change? Never. The language used for the code doesn’t matter in this case.
If the code is just inefficient, well, inefficient Rust is probably slower than efficient Python or JavaScript. Could the complexity of Rust have pushed the devs towards a simpler but less efficient solution that ends up being slower than garbage collected languages? I’m sure this has happened before, but I don’t know anything about the Lemmy code.
Or, again, maybe I’m just underestimating the amount of compute required to support 1500 users sharing a little bit of text and a few images?
The numbers are a little higher than you mention (currently ~3.2k active users). The server isn’t very powerful either, it’s now running on a dedicated server with 6 cores/12 threads and 32 gb ram. Other public instances are using larger servers, such as lemmy.world running on a AMD EPYC 7502P 32 Cores “Rome” CPU and 128GB RAM or sh.itjust.works running on 24 cores and 64GB of RAM. Without running one of these larger instances, I cannot tell what the bottleneck is.
The issues I’ve heard with federation are currently how ActivityPub is implemented, and possibly the fact all upvotes are federated individually. This means every upvote causes a federation queue to be built, and with a ton of users this would pile up fast. Multiply this by all the instances an instance is connected to and you have an exponential increase in requests. ActivityPub is the same protocol used by other federated servers, including Mastodon which had growing pains but appears to be running large instances smoothly now.
Other than that, websockets seem to be a big issue, but is being resolved in 0.18. It also appears every connected user gets all the information being federated, which is the cause for the spam of posts being prepended to the top of the feed. I wouldn’t be surprised if people are already botting content scrapers/posters as well, which might cause a flood of new content which has to get federated which causes queues to back up; this is mostly speculation though.
As it goes with development, generally you focus on feature sets first. Optimization comes once you reach a point a code-freeze makes sense, then you can work on speeding things up without new features breaking stuff. This might be an issue for new users temporarily, but this project wasn’t expecting a sudden increase in demand. This is a great way to show where inefficiencies are and improve performance is though. I have no doubt these will be resolved in a timely manner.
My personal node seems to use minimal resources, not having even registered compared to my other services. Looking at the process manager the postgres/lemmy backend/frontend use ~250MB of RAM.
For now, staying off lemmy.ml and moving communities to other instances is probably best. The use case of large instances anywhere near the scale of reddit wasn’t the goal of the project until reddit users sought alternatives. We can’t expect to show up here and demand it work how we want without a little patience and contributing.
Yup was just typing a comment to basically this effect. Federation adds a ton of overhead – you can still do things fairly efficiently, but every interaction having to fan out to (and fan in from!) many servers instead of like a single RDBMS is gonna cost you.
In all likelihood the code is not as efficient as it could be, but usually you get time to work those out gradually. A giant influx of users quickly turns “TODO: fix in the next six months” into “Oh god the servers are melting fuck fuck.”
That said, assuming the devs can get over this hump, I suspect using a compiled language will pay off long-term. Sure things will still be primarily IO-bound, but making things less CPU-bound is usually a good thing.
For some illustrative examples: Mastodon is in Ruby and hits dumb scaling limitations far more often than other fedi microblogs. Pleroma/Akkoma are Elixir (and BEAM is super well optimized for fast message passing/scaling/IO), Calckey (primarily Typescript) is moving some code to Rust, GoToSocial (Golang) is able to run in a fraction of the resources of Mastodon. The admins of one of the bigger tech instances recently announced they’re basically giving up on administrating Mastodon and are instead going to write a new server from scratch in a compiled language because it’s easier for them than scaling a Rails monolith.
TL;DR everything is IO-bound til it’s not.
I’m pretty sure the fediverse needs a new kind of node at some point. If we assume, that almost every larger instance is connected to almost every other larger instance directly, then there’s a ton of duplicated and very small messages.
There needs to be some kind of hub in-between to aggregate and route this avalanche. Especially if, like you wrote, every upvote is a message, the overhead (I/O, unmarshalling, etc) is huge.
This is kinda how Usenet worked (well, still does). Rather than n*n federated connections, smaller providers tend to federate with central hubs that form backbones.
I think it makes sense for the fediverse as well.
You mean like centralizing the fediverse? Who hosts the hub? Who maintains it? In which country? Who pays for it?
O(n*n) isn’t really scalable, so you either
a - have a small number of nodes total
b - have a small number of hubs with a larger number of leaf nodes.
Either way, there’s going to be some nodes that become more influential than others.
Not a single hub, multiple ones.
Anyone can host a hub, federated instances can negotiate the intersection of hubs they both trust and then send traffic that way. That could mean, a single comment might be sent to, say, five hubs and each hub then forwards to 50 instances or so.
Since the hubs are rather simple, they can scale very easily and via cryptographic ratchets, all instances can make sure, they received the correct messages.
Hmm. Does the federation protocol only send information directly between servers, by that I mean that when something happens on A, does it send it to all other federated servers by itself?
If you could just proxy messages through other servers it would be an improvement. Essentially every instance would also be a hub. If you’re an instance A, connected to B and C, when B send you something you pass it onto C, instead of having C communicate with B directly.
In order to prevent spam you’d need whitelisting for the instances which you will act as a proxy for, and messages will have to be signed. Also, some protocol to discover the topology surrounding your server would be neat for optimizing delivery.
As far as I know, yes. There’s probably a filter in the sense that an instance only gets update for relevant events, i.e. you don’t get messages for communities you’re not subscribed to.
That would essentially be the same concept, just wrapped into each instance. But it would a) put massive loads on these instances and b) need some entity/authority to find the optimal spanning tree in the network - and someone would need to define, what “optimal” means in this context.
I don’t think you need an optimal spanning tree. Proxying messages is basically just how Usenet works. You peer with a small number of other servers each party forwards messages in groups the other party is interested in.
As someone who used to run a Usenet server (20 years ago), I don’t think it’s a better system. The extra hops add a lot of questions related to moderation, filtering, censorship, trust, responsibility for forwarded content, and so on.
That’s why you’d need either a very closely to optimal spanning tree - or just direct intermediates (like a hub). Having messages bounce forever in the network would be far from ideal.
In any case, for everything above the actual message-handling layer, the aggregation should be transparent. That is, for moderation/filtering, etc. it shouldn’t matter, via which route the messages came to your instance.
Trust isn’t that hard either, if you sign messages (I have no idea if that’s already the case). Hubs would be no different from an ISP then.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough above, but I would propose a very simple hub design. A hub receives messages that contain an envelope and a payload within the envelope, and then simply copy/repackage a bunch of payloads in new envelopes and send these to the connect message consumers. The actual payloads are not touch at all.