sh.itjust.works Main Community

102 readers

1 users here now

Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.

Join us on Matrix Chat

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

manifex@sh.itjust.works

184

June 12 - Server Capacity Update (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by TheDude@sh.itjust.works to c/main@sh.itjust.works

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm aware that some of you have been getting some errors loading this instance. This was a configuration that I needed to be adjusted which has since been.

Do be patient if we run into other issues, I'll be continuously working in the back-end with others to better your overall experience.

Still a lot of capacity available!

edit: For those that are interested in the configuring changes. I was using the default lemmy configuration for the nginx worker_connections value. This value needed to be raised. Shout out to @ruud@lemmy.world over at lemmy.world for helping me out.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheDude@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The official supported deployments are single instance based, that being said things are already broken up into separate docker containers so it should be pretty easy to do. Would need to do some testing before hand. If this instance continues growing this way I'll need to look into scaling horizontally instead of vertically

[–] httpjames@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Check out CockroachDB, a distributed SQL database compatible with PostgreSQL clients.

[–] agreenbhm@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the info! Keep up the great work man.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If this instance continues growing this way I'll need to look into scaling horizontally instead of vertically

Could you elaborate what this means?

[–] isildun@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Better to have more servers as opposed to one ultra powerful server because the ultra powerful server tends to be more expensive than an equivalent strength collection of weaker servers. Also, you pay for all the power even during times you don't need it whereas you can take down or add more weak servers as necessary.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for sharing.