this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
562 points (96.8% liked)
Lemmy.World Announcements
29077 readers
141 users here now
This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.
Follow us for server news 🐘
Outages 🔥
https://status.lemmy.world/
For support with issues at Lemmy.world, go to the Lemmy.world Support community.
Support e-mail
Any support requests are best sent to info@lemmy.world e-mail.
Report contact
- DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport
- Email report@lemmy.world (PGP Supported)
Donations 💗
If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.
If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us
Join the team
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it would need to be voluntary; mods on different instances have to agree to be a joint mod group. If an instance decides to break up, they take their mods with them, etc. Might he complicated, but it seems doable.
If the mods were willing to agree to this, why would they not also agree to simply merge the communities? Frequently, when mods choose to maintain overlapping/competing communities/subs... it's because there's conflict about culture or moderation policies. This mechanism feels very duplicative of existing patterns, and limited in much the same ways when cooperation breaks down between mods of different communities.
There’s an advantage to splitting the load amongst multiple instances. If community@host1.com has issues, the subscribers to community can still access community@host2.com.
Further, preventing centralization is a core focus of the fediverse, with all the pros and cons that come with it. The reddit migration is a testament to that philosophy.
If an in-fight happens between two instances’ communities, host1 won’t be able to boot host2’s entire existence, just their agreement to be in sync. Voluntary syncing of communities seems to me a natural extension of the federated philosophy.
I don't have links handy, but the devs have said multiple times that federation replication load is not a limiting factor. It's the browsing load that matters, which is already spread across the instances that subscribers hail from. There isn't a performance issue here to fix, at least around the current network size.
Again, user-account federation already provides this. If the host where the community resides is down, I can still read existing posts, and post and comment with users on my local instance. I don't see significant further benefits in splitting the community hosting.
I don't disagree with this, the challenge is that the federated philosphy makes everything it touches very complicated. A sprinkle of federation in the core of an ecosystem brings enormous resilience against the ecosystem getting coopted against the will of its users. A heaping spoonful of federation makes it an unusable mess. The complexity of federated design needs to bring very big benefits to "pull its weight" in complexity. The tradeoff looks positive for me for federated replication even though the cost in complexity is large, but I don't for meta-communities. They seem like cosmetic improvements over the existing capabilities.
But fair enough, I see where you're coming from. It's not madness, on-balance it's just not something I see providing value in proportion to its conceptual complexity.
Can you help me understand how that all works? I ran into this today where an instance wouldn’t let me submit due to performance issues, and I jumped instances to be able to provide some (potentially) important breaking news to “community.” If they were fully in-sync and one instance didn’t “own” the community, when things stabilized, my content would have replicated instead of being stranded on a lonely instance. As it stands, that content will never be part of the “real” community.
Right on. I’m still new to the fediverse and am probably missing some foundational concepts still. Love where it’s headed though.
I'll preface this by saying I haven't read the code and it's certainly possible there are errors in my mental model, but my belief is:
It's possible I'm mistaken about 3-5, but if you had trouble posting... my guess would be that your own user-instance was struggling and slow. But if you've rules that out maybe the update behavior when the community-instance is down works differently than I think it does. The reading in step 2 I'm quite certain about though.
I'm pretty sure you can't post to community-instance if they're down/having issues to the local DB. The instance I'm on is very stable and every time I think it may be an issue, it turns out to be the other instance.
It sounds like a lot of the "sync" behavior I was thinking of is already built-in if we can just expand on it a bit.
I can't disprove this. My experience when
lemmy.mlwas struggling was that I could comment-reply and vote consistently even though many of the communities I'm active in are on that struggling server. But maybe I was just lucky. I can't explain the behavior you observed, and it may be that certain operations are more directly passed through to the community-hosting instance than I previously believed.But irrespective of the details, plain federation does provide some significant resilience to transient instance failure, and there's probably room to tune it further in at least some ways.
Interesting discussion, though.
Ah, yeah I should clarify that I was able to comment on existing posts, but could not submit a new post. Fun discussion, agreed!
That's the difference then, I do A LOT more commenting than posting. Perhaps there's some essential reason they're handled differently or hopefully an accidental one and posts could be made to behave more like comments someday.