Status update July 4th

Just wanted to let you know where we are with Lemmy.world.

Issues

As you might have noticed, things still won't work as desired.. we see several issues:

Performance

Loading is mostly OK, but sometimes things take forever
We (and you) see many 502 errors, resulting in empty pages etc.
System load: The server is roughly at 60% cpu usage and around 25GB RAM usage. (That is, if we restart Lemmy every 30 minutes. Else memory will go to 100%)

Bugs

Replying to a DM doesn't seem to work. When hitting reply, you get a box with the original message which you can edit and save (which does nothing)
2FA seems to be a problem for many people. It doesn't always work as expected.

Troubleshooting

We have many people helping us, with (site) moderation, sysadmin, troubleshooting, advise etc. There currently are 25 people in our Discord, including admins of other servers. In the Sysadmin channel we are with 8 people. We do troubleshooting sessions with these, and sometimes others. One of the Lemmy devs, @nutomic@lemmy.ml is also helping with current issues.

So, all is not yet running smoothly as we hoped, but with all this help we'll surely get there! Also thank you all for the donations, this helps giving the possibility to use the hardware and tools needed to keep Lemmy.world running!

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

[-] SomeOtherUsername@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 year ago

But... but... Rust...

[-] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Rust makes holes and that's how leaks happen

[-] Sigmatics@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Underrated comment

[-] donalonzo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Rust protects you from segfaulting and trying to access deallocated memory, but doesn't protect you from just deciding to keep everything in memory. That's a design choice. The original developers probably didn't expect such a deluge of users.

[-] bad3r@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Leaking memory is safe

Rust’s memory safety guarantees make it difficult, but not impossible, to accidentally create memory that is never cleaned up (known as a memory leak). Preventing memory leaks entirely is not one of Rust’s guarantees in the same way that disallowing data races at compile time is, meaning memory leaks are memory safe in Rust. We can see that Rust allows memory leaks by using Rc and RefCell: it’s possible to create references where items refer to each other in a cycle. This creates memory leaks because the reference count of each item in the cycle will never reach 0, and the values will never be dropped.

[-] SomeOtherUsername@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 year ago

I’m calling it - if there’s actually a memory leak in the Rust code, it’s gonna be the in memory queues because the DB’s iops can’t cope with the number of users.

[-] SomeOtherUsername@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think I found what eats the memory. DB iops isn't the cause - looks like the server doesn't reply before all the database operations are done. The problem is the unbounded queue in the activitypub_federation crate, spawned when creating the ActivityQueue struct. The point is, this queue holds all the "activities" - events to be sent to federated instances. If, for whatever reason, the events aren't delivered to all the federated servers, they are retried with an exponential backoff for up to 2.5 days. If even a single federated instance is unreachable, all events remain in memory. For a large instance, this will eat up the memory for every upvote/downvote, post or comment.

Lemmy needs to figure out a scalable eventual consistency algorithm. Most importantly, to store the messages in the DB, not in memory.

[-] Coelacanth@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You should consider bringing this up at !lemmyperformance@lemmy.ml

[-] tool@r.rosettast0ned.com 5 points 1 year ago

You should take this entire comment and paste it in as a issue on the Lemmy Github Issues page.

[-] SomeOtherUsername@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 year ago

I think the devs have been aware of the issue, theoretically, for a while. A proper solution requires some significant changes, so it was being postponed because this wasn't considered urgent.