If we can fit about 10-100K people on a Mastodon server,

and we've got 38M Canadians,

then we're going to need 400 to 4000 Canadian servers.

Let's start building them.

@evan Why is there a limit to the number of people on a server? Could an instance not just scale up with hardware as it grows?

@DanFox have they? The max I've seen is 100K. Let me know if you find higher numbers.

There's also social and financial scaling. Can the community scale bigger than that? Can the financial burden be covered?

@DanFox @evan

ooh? really? some corrupt electoral. tell me, does it play background sounds or no? If it does, stand up and hand in your resignation. besides thinking.

@steve @DanFox cool. Probably among the biggest? Could we say order of magnitude between 4 and 6?

@evan @steve I have no idea. I'm not knowledgable enough to say what the right size might be for an instance.

And @Gargron is reporting 2 million active users across #Mastodon ! Imagine if he included active users across the entire #Fediverse 😳

@evan @DanFox just a couple of observations.
1. Most web hosting providers figured this kind of stuff out circa 2009 or so. (User to server ratios)
2. Vertical scaling isn’t a good answer. It gets expensive and tightly coupled compute and storage never ends well.

The fundamental problems I see with Mastodon and everything else using an RDB in the back end are:

1. They’re monolithic and won’t scale well.
2. To support huge scale the data would be far better off in object storage which would be a ton cheaper as well
3. If people decide not to go down the small web path, to service large user numbers effectively a Microservices architecture with headless APIs on cloud is probably the way to go.

Just separating storage from compute and horizontal scaling would be a huge step towards effective scale.

What is MACH? (

M: Individual pieces of business functionality that are independently developed, deployed, and managed.

A: All functionality is exposed through an API.

C: SaaS that leverages the cloud, beyond storage and hosting, including elastic scaling and automatically updating.

H: Front-end presentation is decoupled from back-end logic and channel, programming language, and is framework agnostic.

@evan Might be getting a tiny bid ahead of ourselves. :)

@wonky @evan

well, make sure being able to stand the what then, mark.
Saying it ain't sufficient when unable to have the understanding to back it up.
If we had, we wouldn't; have africans talking the jive now would we?
@evan @wonky

then why are they in peril, mark? Tell me, how much has the verse costed so far?

Like terrorists
@evan @wonky

fuck you. because crushing it|?
madame booths whoring objecitng?
@evan @wonky

is it?
how so? Doesn't prove the architecture? I sense anterior motive with africans getting smart
@evan @wonky

believe has a hold because using react? Pretentious somehow

taking how when public property bitch?
Show newer

@wonky OK, thanks for the tip, but I think we're going to still work on getting new servers. We're not setting up 4000 servers tomorrow, don't worry.

@evan 😂​ we probably don't need to assume that we'll get the whole country. Wouldn't that be cool, though. I'm guessing we're going to find a practical break-over point at about 20 - 50k users where it's cheaper and more stable to start another server.

@rory @evan With the amount of rural people without decent reliable and well priced connectivity, also further north you go the worse it is, certainly not the whole country :)

With my skimming of how federation works, number of users on a server isn't the only factor to scaling, its also how many people they follow that increases the resources used. The more accounts followed, the more their instance uses in storage and networks. There's an equation in the works there I'm sure..

@Toxic_Flange @evan yeah, it does seem that the toughest thing to keep up with is the queuing of updates to and from other instances. The deployment is well documented and gives an idea of what you might need to scale smoothly.

@evan TBH I think the upper bound for a Mastodon server should not be "how many people can the server handle" but "how many people can the admins and mods handle". And if that's only 1000, 100, or 5, that's fine.

I've seen a lot of servers with growing pains, and it's not a technical issue, it's social—taking on users en masse without the resources to vet, moderate, and support them.

@sean @nev @evan regarding Dunbar's number I listened to this interesting podcast episode recently which criticises it a bit.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Family server