His term has covered 4 months so far… Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr.

No idea where it’s from, but I used it as a kid too. Also munted, though that has fallen out of use for the similar sound to another word.

We’ve now caught up with LW, should stay in sync barring any issues or massive growth in activities from LW:

Ha just finished watching a movie and was going to post this, you beat me :)

Still on track to be caught up late tomorrow :)

At the rate we’re catching up, I think we’ll be all caught up Saturday some time:

It’s a simple tick box in the admin settings interface. Trivially easy to enable, and presumably disable. Doesn’t appear to even require a service restart.

It’s not so much about cost, but impact on user experience when the server is busy serving non-logged in users.

It’s not usually a concern, but having this in place would have mitigated the recent “attacks” we experienced without me having to do anything.

I’m not talking about making this community private. Its valuable as is.

0.19.11 adds the ability for an instance to not display content to non-logged in users. Non-AZ users would retain access to all AZ homed communities etc.

As posted elsewhere, LW admins have enabled concurrent outgoing federation ~12 hours ago which has greatly improved things:

They’ve turned this on overnight after it came up in an admin chat channel, we’re no longer falling behind but are catching up at a good rate. Once caught up, federated activity from LW -> AZ should be pretty snappy and remain that way.

Yep, /c/meta is the perfect place to discuss this. Or anything else meta relating to AZ.

Have reached out to LW admins, they’ve enabled 2 send threads… looking better now… will keep an eye on it.

You’re wrong, I’ll leave it at that. Won’t be replying any further.

Thanks, I hadn’t seen this one. I’ve updated our nginx config and AZ now passes the test on that page. No idea if it will help with GIFs etc.

With the resources available its not feasible for AZ to develop/deploy custom solutions that can be resolved by remote instances with trivial configuration changes.

I’m not going to address specific parts of your post, suffice to say I disagree on almost everything you said.

As I said previously, if you have a workable solution please do devlop it and submit a PR to the lemmy devs. I’d be happy to try your suggestion should they roll it in.

You’re contradicting yourself there. By definition adding an external service is a customization to lemmy. I’m not interested in running un-vetted software from a third party.

This has been discussed previously with a request from a reputable source to batching content from LW. That setup required an additional server for AZ, close to LW. And for LW to send their outgoing federation traffic for AZ to it, which then batched and send to the real AZ server. This offer was declined, though appreciated.

I’ve been transparent and open about the situation. You seem to think this is the fault of AZ, and we’re willfully not taking an action that we should be taking. This is not the case.

As it stands the issue is inherent with single threaded lemmy federation, which is why the devs added the option for multiple concurrent threads. Until LW enable this feature, we’ll see delayed content from them when their activity volume is greater than what can be federated with a single thread. To imply this is the fault of the receiving instances is disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

Note I said lemmy AND the activitypub protocol, ie lemmy does not currently have this capability. If it were added to mainline lemmy I’d be open to configuring it, but its not so I can’t.

The root cause of the issue is well understood, the solution is available in lemmy already: multiple concurrent outgoing federation connections to remote instances. AZ has had this configured since it was available. LW have not yet enabled this, though they’re now running a version that has it available.

Appreciate the offer, but I’m not interested in customising the AZ server configuration more than it already is. If you write it up and submit a PR that the main lemmy devs incorporate, I’d be happy to look at it.

That isn’t how lemmy and the activitypub protocol work. Source instance pushes metadata about new content, remote instance then needs to pull it. If we’ve not received the push yet, we can’t pull the additional info.