Yup you nailed it. For additional context, Ruud is running an almost identical server for his Mastadon.world server which has 160k users. Relatively speaking, these are large, performant, and expensive servers. They can absolutely handle the current user influx we are getting from the Reddit exodus. Are hands are tied by software limitations unfortunately. I can confidently tell you were are constantly in communication about ways we can amplify user experience with the tools that we do have access to. For instance, this status page was recently spun up which you can access anytime you think there might be server issues to help confirm that what you are seeing is recognized at a server level. Things like that.
All that being said, for users who are looking for a smoother experience right now, I can recommend lemm.ee as a solid home as well. Their admin Sunaurus has been very active and helpful throughout this process and handles his instance very professionally. He is essentially another Ruud (though Ruud is the best! ;)). Just something to keep in mind going forward as I can't make any promises about the time frames for these issues being resolved. Hopefully once we get contact back from the Lemmy devs we can start expediting a resolution. They have a lot on their plates right now though, haha, so we will see. Cheers!
Just to be clear, are you saying that when you go to your profile page, the sublemmys that you have 'subscription pending' for do not show up there??
Technically speaking, yes, a portion of our issues are due to the highest user base of an Lemmy instance. So in theory, if half of our users dispersed to other instances, we would likely see some performance improvement here. However, lemmy.world is intended to be an accessible instance for the general population. The server itself that is running lemmy.world is beyond spec'd to handle much more than this user load. We are running up against code-level issues that we may or may not be able to get around with our internal configurations. This is just part of developing software in an environment were you go from a few thousand users total to hundreds of thousands in the space of a few weeks. There is no directive to have users create accounts on new instances, though if you are looking for an immediate performance improvement, that may be your best option currently. That is up to you to decide :)
Thanks for the kind words! Yeah, there are definite growing pains, and likely will be for some time (just do to the codebase we are working with, understandably). We have a really solid group though heading up lemmy.world though so we will be just fine ;)
The login form should be related to the overall spiking we were seeing, though I can't say we had conclusive evidence of that. I have been able to get it to load properly with a few refreshes. Maybe try clearing your cache? I had to do that several times during testing.
PSA from Admin Team: The update completed roughly two hours ago. Since that time, the Admin team (and other site admins) have been working on the noted performance issues. We believe we have found a solution, but we still need time to test this out. You may still see brief outages and differences in performance as we are testing different configurations. We are trying to prevent rolling back.
While I know this can be frustrating - especially today - please keep in mind we have a team of volunteer techies (from around the globe!) collaborating on this issue. It is an inspiring situation. Also keep in mind that lemmy.world is quite a bit larger (and more active than any other instance). As such, we are a bit of a ‘test instance’ in regards to high volume requests. This is just part of the growing pain. We appreciate your understanding.
@ruud@lemmy.world will provide a debrief once we have completed testing.
The other thing to note with this bug, at least in my experience and what I have seen, even if it shows pending it will still show up in your 'Subscribed' feed. So while visually it is inaccurate, it seems to actually function properly. To be seen if the upgrade to 0.18.1 has any effect.
Use this interactive tool to estimate the storage space of your Synology NAS when paired with different size hard drives and RAID levels.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/679532
> cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/679531 > > > cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/679471 > > > > > Not sure the best place to ask this. > > > > > > I have a DS420J 4 bay NAS, primarily used for my Plex server and data backups (among a few other things). I currently have 8x6x6 TB Iron Wolf NAS drives in a single volume with SRH and an extra 1 TB SSD JBOD. I have my Plex app and metadata stored on the SSD due to the increased performance I have seen vs. having it installed on the large pool (7200 RPM cap). I am sitting at about 85% used storage of my available 10.8 TB on the primary volume. As such, I am pre-planning my next storage upgrade and am curious about my options while staying with the current hardware. The future plan will be a NAS upgrade, but this little beast has been chugging along so perfectly I want to push it as far as I can. > > > > > > If I was to remove the 1 TB drive and replace it with another 8 TB Iron Wolf, I would jump to 20 TB available storage. > > > https://www.synology.com/en-us/support/RAID_calculator?hdds=6%20TB%7C6%20TB%7C8%20TB%7C8%20TB > > > This increase would last me for quite some time ahead of a full NAS upgrade with more bays. In order to do this, I would obviously need to remove the 1 TB SSD to be replaced by the new drive. I have na external enclosure for this drive that can connect over USB to the NAS. > > > > > > My question: I am finding somewhat conflicting information on how external drives are intended to be used/what their capabilities are when connected to the USB 3.2 port. It seems the intended functionality for backups (which makes sense). Am I able to utilize a USB connected drive and have it function in a similar manner to it being internal? Are you able to install apps from the Package Center to an external drive? Create volumes? I assume there will be some performance degradation due to the translation from SATA to USB, then back to SATA, but I anticipate the SSD will still perform better than adding the app back to the main pool. I just don’t know if I am potentially missing something with my evaluation. Those that have more experience with USB connected drive with their NAS, I would love to hear your experience. Thanks!
Use this interactive tool to estimate the storage space of your Synology NAS when paired with different size hard drives and RAID levels.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/679531
> cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/679471 > > > Not sure the best place to ask this. > > > > I have a DS420J 4 bay NAS, primarily used for my Plex server and data backups (among a few other things). I currently have 8x6x6 TB Iron Wolf NAS drives in a single volume with SRH and an extra 1 TB SSD JBOD. I have my Plex app and metadata stored on the SSD due to the increased performance I have seen vs. having it installed on the large pool (7200 RPM cap). I am sitting at about 85% used storage of my available 10.8 TB on the primary volume. As such, I am pre-planning my next storage upgrade and am curious about my options while staying with the current hardware. The future plan will be a NAS upgrade, but this little beast has been chugging along so perfectly I want to push it as far as I can. > > > > If I was to remove the 1 TB drive and replace it with another 8 TB Iron Wolf, I would jump to 20 TB available storage. > > https://www.synology.com/en-us/support/RAID_calculator?hdds=6%20TB%7C6%20TB%7C8%20TB%7C8%20TB > > This increase would last me for quite some time ahead of a full NAS upgrade with more bays. In order to do this, I would obviously need to remove the 1 TB SSD to be replaced by the new drive. I have na external enclosure for this drive that can connect over USB to the NAS. > > > > My question: I am finding somewhat conflicting information on how external drives are intended to be used/what their capabilities are when connected to the USB 3.2 port. It seems the intended functionality for backups (which makes sense). Am I able to utilize a USB connected drive and have it function in a similar manner to it being internal? Are you able to install apps from the Package Center to an external drive? Create volumes? I assume there will be some performance degradation due to the translation from SATA to USB, then back to SATA, but I anticipate the SSD will still perform better than adding the app back to the main pool. I just don’t know if I am potentially missing something with my evaluation. Those that have more experience with USB connected drive with their NAS, I would love to hear your experience. Thanks!
Bravo to you. This was absolutely the right call and I hope you let it rot if there isn't a massive change of direction. Frankly, for me, even if they do roll things back I am still done with them. P2P is how the internet should be (funny considering torrenting has been a thing for how long now?) and thankfully we have guys like you to step up and help get this off the ground. Thanks!
