Thanks!
Cost is not the bottleneck in this case… The problem is that I am rather ignorant about the options and their benefits/limitations. Moving the images the first time was painfully slow because of those same rate limits, and I expect the next migration to be the same, so I want to make a better choice next time and would rather find a solution with the current provider 😅
Thanks for the heads up. I am still trying to resolve this without a migration… I will try again to get a response from them as they have not replied in a week.
This is the current status:
The instance is serving the images via object storage. Specifically, I am making use of Contabo to save and serve the images.
I now know that the default limits are 250 requests / second and 80 Mbit/s: https://help.contabo.com/en/support/solutions/articles/103000275478-what-limits-are-there-on-object-storage-
It appears to me like when the requests are exceeded, the “Too many requests” error is triggered and it takes a few seconds before the requests are accepted again. This can happen if few users access the front page at once as this will fetch all of the thumbnails and icons on the page.
I have been in touch with Contabo’s customer support via e-mail. But they mis-understood my original e-mails and thought I was speaking about increasing the maximum number of images that can be stored (3 million by default). I have clarified that I want to increase the rate limit and have been waiting for their response for a few days now.
The other solution would be to move the images to a different object storage provider. The migration is also limited to the 250 requests/s and 80 Mbit/s, so it will require turning off the images for 4 - 7 days while all the images are moved… Since I am not familiar with the policies of other object storage providers I would also need to do research to avoid falling into the same trap.
So, I am hoping that Contabo’s support will get back to me soon and allow me to increase the rate limits, as this would be the most straight forward approach.
And you are doing a great job at that! 😄
Very interesting article, thanks for sharing. I agree that it is a good one to pin!!
I have been reaching out to the object storage provider to see if I can increase the rate limits… Unfortunately I might need to change to a different provider to overcome this. Since the migration takes several days, especially so because of those same rate limits, I would rather avoid this…
That’s an error I had not seen before, but I also just encountered with this specific post. I will investigate, thanks.
This error is a rate limit from the object storage provider. I did not know of this limit when I chose them, and I still have not found a way to change the limit. I will send them an e-mail. If the limit can’t be increased, one option is to pick another object storage provider, but the migration takes days.
Check in your settings whether you have disabled the visibility of bot responses. This can happen if bots replied to you and your settings are set to not see them.
Thank you for being alert! I have banned them instance-wide now.
I did not know of the term “open washing” before reading this article. Unfortunately it does seem like the pending EU legislation on AI has created a strong incentive for companies to do their best to dilute the term and benefit from the regulations.
There are some paragraphs in the article that illustrate the point nicely:
In 2024, the AI landscape will be shaken up by the EU’s AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive AI law, with a projected impact on science and society comparable to GDPR. Fostering open source driven innovation is one of the aims of this legislation. This means it will be putting legal weight on the term “open source”, creating only stronger incentives for lobbying operations driven by corporate interests to water down its definition.
[…] Under the latest version of the Act, providers of AI models “under a free and open licence” are exempted from the requirement to “draw up and keep up-to-date the technical documentation of the model, including its training and testing process and the results of its evaluation, which shall contain, at a minimum, the elements set out in Annex IXa” (Article 52c:1a). Instead, they would face a much vaguer requirement to “draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary about the content used for training of the general-purpose AI model according to a template provided by the AI Office” (Article 52c:1d).
If this exemption or one like it stays in place, it will have two important effects: (i) attaining open source status becomes highly attractive to any generative AI provider, as it provides a way to escape some of the most onerous requirements of technical documentation and the attendant scientific and legal scrutiny; (ii) an as-yet unspecified template (and the AI Office managing it) will become the focus of intense lobbying efforts from multiple stakeholders (e.g., [12]). Figuring out what constitutes a “sufficiently detailed summary” will literally become a million dollar question.
Thank you for pointing out Grayjay, I had not heard of it. I will look into it.
Thank you being around, bringing this nice community here, and helping with the federation!! 😁
Jajaja, sí, soy Mexicano 😁
🥳 Muchas gracias!
I find it satisfying to see the graph come down :)
Yes, sorry, there was some serious lagg in fetching posts from Lemmy World that persisted for several days and accumulated a 1-week delay.
But after upgrading Mander it is now fetching data from LW quite rapidly and it should be back in-sync in about a day and a half from now.
If you are curious about the ranking algorithm, there is some info here: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/contributors/07-ranking-algo.html
Amazing work! Thanks a lot!! Took me a few days to get to it but I have upgraded now and it looks great 😄
First of all, congratulations for bringing a baby girl into this world!! You must be really excited! I am very happy for you!
This looks very cool. I set up a wiki (https://ibis.mander.xyz/) and I will make an effort to populate it with some Lemmy lore and interesting science/tech 😄 Hopefully I can set some time aside and help with a tiny bit of code too.
what was /post/1? what are they hiding??
The plot thickens…
This is what I think, but if anyone understands it differently please correct me.
Vertical scalability refers to scaling within a single instance. More users join and they post more content, increasing the amount of disk space needed to hold that memory, network bandwidth to handle many users downloading comments and images at once, and processing power.
Horizontal scaling refers to the lemmyverse growing because of the addition of new instances. The problem in this form of scaling is due to the resources that an instance has to use due to its interactions with other instances. So, you may create a small instance without a lot of users, but the instance might still need a lot of resources if it attempts to retrieve a lot of information (posts, comments, user information, etc) from the other larger instances. For example, at some point a community in lemmy.ml might be so popular that subscribing to that community from a small instance would be too much of a burden on the smaller instance because of the amount of memory required to save the constant stream of new posts. The horizontal scaling is a problem when the lemmyverse becomes so large that a machine with only a small amount of resources is no longer able to be part of the lemmyverse because its memory gets filled up in a few hours or days.
Good news! Just got a reply from them and they have increased the connection limit. They did not specify what the new number is, but hopefully it is high enough to not be an issue for the foreseeable future.
So, if you do run into other similar reports after this comment I would appreciate it if you tag me again.