this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
101 points (98.1% liked)

Fediverse

17735 readers
49 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
deadsuperhero@lemmy.ml
wakest@lemmy.ml
101
What is the maximum number of active users on an instance before the financial burden gets too high for the admins? (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by Blaze@sopuli.xyz to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Pretty straight question.

I see Lemm.ee is now the second most populated instance based on https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/list, with 3634 monthly active users.

I also know that Lemmy devs said that

lemmy.ml is bigger than beehaw, and only costs 80 euros per month for a dedicated server.

https://lemmy.ml/comment/2372503

As lemmy.ml has 3561 monthly active users, should we consider that around 3,5k-4k users is the sweet spot for an instance population, and stop recommending the ones that reached that threshold?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hoodlem@hoodlem.me 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is a fantastic point. The more the financial burden falls on one person, the more likely it is that at some point the expense will become too great for that individual admin to carry.

So from a financial perspective it makes a lot of sense to have many small/medium sized instances rather than a few large ones.

You suggest when an instance reaches a given size, stop recommending it. Totally agree. Based on known expenses for instances, it might not be a bad idea to have a recommended threshold (number of users) at which to stop or slow signups as well.

There are several places that would need to be updated when it comes to recommending instances. One that comes to my mind right away is apps. Several apps only list the top 4-5 instances when signing up. And default to Lemmy.world. It’s not a great situation to be in, but I think we can make a change if this info gets circulated more broadly.

[–] WhipTheLlama@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Besides user count, the number of federated instances, posts, and comments will also increase server costs. Its possible that federating from many instances has a larger performance penalty than having a high user count.

[–] Blaze@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

That's another point. I guess over time some instances would aggregate in clusters. There is probably low interest for a niche software development English speaking instance to federate with a local Japan speaking city instance

[–] Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see instances that are dedicated to individual subs/niche topics as things become more spread out. As the user base grows, it's just not realistic for a handful of instances to host virtually every popular sub across all of lemmy (or all of the fediverse that's visible from lemmy).

[–] pkulak@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

That’s what Mastadon does. I’m on a very specific server, and I mostly follow folks on that server. But I can still follow anyone, of course.

[–] Blaze@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Happy to see I'm not the only ont thinking that!

[–] Sean@liberal.city 2 points 1 year ago

@hoodlem @Blaze I started out on Masthead dot social as my Mastodoninstance & then it imploded without an explanation, now I'm on a really small instance administered by someone I followed when on Masthead. There should be someway to migrate your account even without your original instance being involved, like a PGP public-private key implementation, getting users to normalize floating from instance to instance without a hiccup would alleviate concerns about the glut of users on 4-5 instances