The Fediverse - especially the microblogging side of it - has deep issues when it comes to environmental sustainability.

And the high resource requirements, which result from an incredible level of redundancy, aren’t just bad environmentally: they make running a server more costly, and increase our reliance on Big Tech’s infrastructure.

I wrote about all this, along with some suggestions for how we can improve things somewhat.

  • vic_rattlehead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Good points, makes me think of how good lightweight RSS readers were at accomplishing the same kinds of content aggregation goals, and worked well even over 56k modems.

  • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    How much of the power consumption is from the servers and how much is from the clients?

    • smallpatatas@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      That’s a good question. The best answer is, I don’t know!

      But if I had to guess, based on the small amount I’ve learned:

      larger servers most likely benefit from economies of scale. They’ll be using CDNs, and will often have several people on their server following any given remote account, rather than just one. So the per-client energy use is almost certainly lower than for small servers.

      But it’s still tough to know whether it’s the client or server using more energy. IIRC with video streaming, the end user’s device was a big factor in overall consumption - but it’s not like the server is chugging away 24/7 fetching media for you like a Fediverse server is.

      For single-user servers, or servers with only a few accounts, I expect the server (and all the network infrastructure in between two servers) is doing a lot more work than the client(s) - unless it’s like, the server is on a raspberry Pi and the client is running on a powerful desktop for a lot of the day, or something. Again, many factors at play.

      Really though, the question I start to ask in all this is more about, which parts of the system are the most difficult to justify?___

  • 56!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    What I feel is missing from the practical suggestions section: why cache images at all? They should be stored on the server they were uploaded to, and nowhere else. The image URL would be attached to the post, and could then be used by clients to fetch the image from the original server.

    I thought lemmy did this, but it seems not (any more?).

    • smallpatatas@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I hear you on this - Akkoma does this by default, but the issue there is, let’s say someone on a tiny server posts an image, even a relatively small one - if it gets boosted by an account with 10k followers, that small server will effectively get DDOSed, assuming enough of those clients are online.