Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Veticia Misumena 🕷️🌺

@chopsstephens @rastilin @aurynn @xssfox
For redundancy I have every disk in raid 1 (with daily/weekly offsite backup) and it has 2 power supplies connected to a relatively big ups (it can take a few hours). As for internet I only had to deal with outages a few times in the last few years. I probably could get another connection from another provider, but I don't think it would help much. That one time someone cut the fiber, internet was down in entire city, so I guess all of them share a single point of failure anyway.

3 comments
Sam Stephens

@Veticia @rastilin @aurynn @xssfox it's still a single machine. Things fail other than disks. If that machine fails, can you quickly fail over to another machine? Aurynn can easily stand up and fail over to replacement instances if the hardware she's on fails.

You're telling Aurynn that her service is over-engineered, without knowing the SLAs Aurynn is trying to work to. And I'll tell you now, they're SLAs that you cannot meet with a single physical machine.

Veticia Misumena 🕷️🌺

@chopsstephens @rastilin @aurynn @xssfox
Oh, I don't have anything to criticise Audrynn for. Her setup looks pretty nice actually.

But I also don't necessarily see a single machine setup to be inherently worse. Aurynn's setup currently works on 8 machines, each with its own distinct role. That's 8 points of failure. If one of them dies of if connection breaks between them, all of them can stop working (especially if that hits the database one). It's nice if someone's dealing with redundancy for you, but you have to trust them to do it right.

As for my setup, I can just throw those disks to another machine (I still have a few laying around) and it'll most likely keep working without changing anything.

But I have to agree, sometimes it's just better to pay someone else to deal with all of that for you. (Unless when it's too expensive to justify the cost.) But since Aurynn instance is a paid one I guess she can figure something out. She does look like a smart one.

@chopsstephens @rastilin @aurynn @xssfox
Oh, I don't have anything to criticise Audrynn for. Her setup looks pretty nice actually.

But I also don't necessarily see a single machine setup to be inherently worse. Aurynn's setup currently works on 8 machines, each with its own distinct role. That's 8 points of failure. If one of them dies of if connection breaks between them, all of them can stop working (especially if that hits the database one). It's nice if someone's dealing with redundancy for you,...

nick
@Veticia @chopsstephens it’s really frustrating seeing so many people jump in with the snooty “never run large infrastructure, huh?” attitude when that is objectively the opposite of how we should be building instances. The whole point of federation is many small parts of a larger whole so there aren’t huge single points of failure. It’s ok if your instance goes down for a bit, it’ll get caught back up when it comes back online. I think self hosting on used hardware is perfectly fine (it’s what I’m doing), if you do regular backups offsite, because if you’re going to outgrow that hardware you’re probably staring down an issue of maintaining effective moderation anyway. Don’t grow so big that you need big installation methods.
@Veticia @chopsstephens it’s really frustrating seeing so many people jump in with the snooty “never run large infrastructure, huh?” attitude when that is objectively the opposite of how we should be building instances. The whole point of federation is many small parts of a larger whole so there aren’t huge single points of failure. It’s ok if your instance goes down for a bit, it’ll get caught back up when it comes back online. I think self hosting on used hardware is perfectly fine (it’s what I’m...
Go Up