Ancestors

Written by Ambassador on 2024-08-04 at 11:08

We are once again about to hit our database quota on the hosting.

This will result in a plan increase, which comes in at an additional $50USD/month.

Currently we're slowing going backwards (income is less than costs), and this increase is going to put further pressure on that.

(how much pressure you ask? doing some quick maths - I reckon we have 2-3 months in the kitty before we're in dire straits)

Times are tough, but if you can afford to donate, I'd appreciate it :)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ambassador@photog.social

Written by Steven Lawson Photography on 2024-08-04 at 11:44

@ambassador Is there anything practical we can do, like deleting old posts or limiting file sizes? I mean as well as making or increasing our donations.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from stevenlawson@photog.social

Written by Hatebunny on 2024-08-04 at 15:31

@stevenlawson @ambassador kind of drastic measure, but would doing something like instance blocking bigger instances like .social help at all, since we wouldn't be loading their posts as well as ours?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hatebunny@photog.social

Written by Ambassador on 2024-08-04 at 20:50

@hatebunny @stevenlawson possibly. There's another drastic measure that can be taken as well, which is to nuke data in the database older than a certain date, the problem with that option is, it isn't re-fetched if someone tries to access that information (which seems less than ideal)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ambassador@photog.social

Written by Steven Lawson Photography on 2024-08-04 at 21:05

@ambassador @hatebunny Personally I wouldn't have an issue with older data being deleted if it meant a secure future for the instance. Out of interest, how far back does the data go, what does it consist of and what cut-off point would you consider acceptable?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from stevenlawson@photog.social

Written by Ambassador on 2024-08-04 at 21:16

@stevenlawson @hatebunny The database goes back to the start of the instance (so around 2016ish iirc).

The big scary warning on the setting says:

"Content cache retention period

All posts and boosts from other servers will be deleted after the specified number of days. Some posts may not be recoverable. All related bookmarks, favourites and boosts will also be lost and impossible to undo."

Which is less scary than it used to be, I admit. I might put a poll up.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ambassador@photog.social

Written by Steven Lawson Photography on 2024-08-04 at 21:43

@ambassador @hatebunny I wonder how often folk go back more than a few months looking for old posts etc? I rarely do - I don't even look at my own posts more than a few weeks back, which probably suggests I should institute an automatic delete option regardless of what happens at instance level. Would pinned posts remain outside any self-imposed or server-based culls? A poll would help gauge reaction, for sure.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from stevenlawson@photog.social

Toot

Written by Ambassador on 2024-08-04 at 22:44

@stevenlawson not sure in pinned posts. From reading the (somewhat crappy) docs, it seems the date based retention is pretty “all or none” when it comes to retaining external content. So I’d guess pinned posts would be included in the cull.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ambassador@photog.social

Descendants

Written by Steven Lawson Photography on 2024-08-04 at 22:47

@ambassador Righto, good to know

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from stevenlawson@photog.social