this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
99 points (96.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43874 readers
1395 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 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 this could be a ticking DOS time bomb.
Someone manages to spam upload massive files to the largest Lemmy instances could wipe out a ton of smaller ones.
Not to mention scalability wise this seems like a nightmare… eventually the largest Lemmy instances will have petabytes of media data with 100s of gbs coming in per day, giving other instances no chance to sync with them.
I think the system architecture needs a significant review. This won’t scale.
I agree. It's also a tremendous waste of resources. I'm all for redundancy (like CDNs), but this seems incredibly poorly thought out. If Lemmy (as a whole) every scales to the size of other social media, the space requirements will start to become unreasonable.
Why wouldn't something like symlinks be implemented? Not saying specifically use symlinks, but there has to be a similar, better way.
The obvious way would be to just not cache content locally and always link to the source instance. While this would concentrate the strain immensely, it would also greatly decrease the storage space used by all other instances.
There might also be other viable alternatives such as using a CDN and having it selectively cache content which is requested often etc.
~~As of now, Lemmy does not support either, though. ~~
Edit: I want to clarify that I was partially wrong - Lemmy only locally caches content which is hosted on outside sites. It does (should?) not cache content that was directly uploaded to a Lemmy instance and just embeds the source media.
I feel like the developers should spend some time adding features to reduce malicious activity. They could provide settings to the admins to limit the number of things one user can do in a day, like number of images, total size of images, number of communities created, etc. Sure, someone could create multiple accounts, but it would still make it harder to attack Lemmy.
Agree. If I'm not mistaken, you can only disable the caching of sensitive (NSFW) content on your instance by disabling NSFW in general. This doesn't go for SFW content though.
It shouldn't be very hard to do this for all content though, if I find the time I might look into implementing this.
I mentioned something akin to this possibility a couple days ago, but was told this likely wasn’t the case. I’ll have to see if I can dig up the argument for that.