Lemmy

Can you please stop with the unnecessary snark and this silly attempt at dick-measuring? Are you upset at something?

Are you unironically implying that a site with a backend that has multiple servers stood up to spread the load won’t have tremendously better capacity, redundancy...

No. I am saying that the majority of websites out there don't need to pay the costs or worry about this.

Good engineering is about understanding trade-offs. We can be talking all day about the different strategies to have 4, 5 or 6 nines of availability, but all that would be pointless if the conversation is not anchored in how much will be the cost of implementing and operating such a solution.

Lemmy - like all other social media software - does not need that. There is nothing critical about it. No one dies if the server goes offline for a couple of minutes in the month. No business will stop making money if we take the database down to do a migration instead of using blue-green deployments. Even the busiest instances are not seeing enough load to warrant more servers and are able to scale by simply (1) fine-tuning the database (which is the real bottleneck) and (2) launching more processes.

Anyone that is criticizing Lemmy because "it can not scale out" is either talking out of their ass or a bad engineer. Possibly both.