this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2023
386 points (99.7% liked)
Lemmy.World Announcements
29048 readers
4 users here now
This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.
Follow us for server news ๐
Outages ๐ฅ
https://status.lemmy.world/
For support with issues at Lemmy.world, go to the Lemmy.world Support community.
Support e-mail
Any support requests are best sent to [email protected] e-mail.
Report contact
- DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport
- Email [email protected] (PGP Supported)
Donations ๐
If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.
If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us
Join the team
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Right, but if you don't have a cache setup, then the DB gets taxed. At a certain point a cache looses its benefit, but an enormous amount of savings can be made (to backend DB calls, for example) by just caching all API reads for ~60 seconds.
Ensuring there's no data leakage in those cached calls can be tricky, especially if any api calls return anything sensitive (login tokens, authentication information, etc) but I can see caching all read-only endpoints that return the same data regardless of permissions for a second or two being helpful for the larger servers.
It's also worth noting that postgres does its own query-level caching, quite aggressively too. I've worked in some places where we had to add a
SELECT RANDOM()to a query to ensure it was pulling the latest data.In my experience, the best benefits gained from caching are done before the backend and are stored in RAM, so the query never even reaches those services at all. I've used varnish for this (which is also what the big CDN providers use). In Lemmy, I imagine that would be the ngnix proxy that sits in-front of the backend.
I haven't heard admins discussing web-proxy caching, which may have something to do with the fact that the Lemmy API is currently pretty much entirely over websockets. I'm not an expert in web-sockets, and I don't want to say that websockets API responses absolutely can't be cached... but it's not like caching a restful API. They are working on moving away from websockets, btw... but it's not there yet.
The comments from Lemmy devs in https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/2877 make me think that there's a lot of database query optimization low-hanging fruit to be had, and that admins are frequently focusing on app configs like worker counts and db configs to maximize the effectiveness of db-level caches, indexes, and other optimizations.
Which isn't to say there aren't gains in the direction your suggesting, but I haven't seen evidence that anyone's secret sauce is in effective web-proxy caches.
Yeah, that's exactly why I'm asking this question. All the effort seems to be going into the DB -- but you can have a horribly shitty DB and backend but still have a massively performant webserver by just caching away the reads to RAM.
I didn't see any tickets about this on the GitHub, which is why I'm asking around to see if there's actually some very low-hanging-fruit for improving all the instances with a frontend RAM cache.
Much of your post seemed to focus on the techniques employed by
lemmy.world, caching websocket responses in the web-proxy does not seem to prominently feature among those techniques.If you're interested in advancing the state of the discussion around web-proxy caching, I'd consider standing up an instance to experiment with it and report your own findings. You wouldn't necessarily have to take on the ongoing expense and moderation headache of a public instance, you could set up with new user registrations closed, create your own test users, and write a small load generator powered by https://join-lemmy.org/api/ to investigate the effect of caching common API queries.
I may be wrong, but there is a branch in the works (UI repo) that pulls the web socket out and replaces it all with http calls. So the web socket may not be here for long
You're correct, the devs are already committed to deprecating the websocket API. This may make caching easier in the future and people may use it more as a result. I'm a little bit skeptical as most of the the heavy requests are from authenticated users, and web-proxy caching authenticated requests without risking serving them up to the wrong user is also non-trivial. But caching is not my area of expertise, there may be straightforward solutions here.
But my comment was in reference to current releases in use on real world Lemmy servers.
Yes, I didnโt intend to downplay your comment. Caching at the proxy later with auth is something I am not familiar with. I never had to implement it in my career. (So far ๐ ) I just wanted to make it known that the web socket may be a thing of Lemmy past for anyone unaware
I never interpreted it that way. Your comment was helpful, and I was expanding on it with more context. Lemmy on, friend.
Good to hear! Lemmy on ๐ญโ
I work on nginx cache modules for a CDN provider.
While websockets can be proxied, they're impractical to cache. There are no turn key solutions for this that I'm aware of, but an interesting approach might be to build something on top of NChan with some custom logic in ngx_lua.
I agree with you that web proxy cache's aren't the silver bullet solution. They need to be part of a more holistic approach, which should start with optimizing the database queries.
Caching with auth is possible, but it's a whole can of worms that should be a last resort, not a first one.