217
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
217 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37742 readers
500 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's the reason for that? Caching purposes?
General idea is that if there is only one copy, taking something down is knocking that server out of service.
I think so. My Lemmy instance for example is currently storing several gigabytes of images in my cloud buckets, but with my 4 users I'm reasonably confident it didn't all come from us.
This is why I disabled that feature on my Lemmy instance.
If I'm running a tiny little single-user instance on a potato and my post goes to the mastodon.social federated feed, it would be impolite for them to direct 20,000 requests at my potato all at once. Instead, their servers grabs one copy and serves it to their users. If they're set up for 20k eyeballs online at once, they've got capacity to serve them all the photo.
Mastodon has a configurable clean-up period for cached media so you don't use infinite disk. That gives a bad actor an easy way to robustly host images for a couple days: post it, let it federate out, and then take your server down. Everyone else is now doing crimes for you, and cleaning it up is a reactive process by dozens of server admins.
Yes it's a caching thing.