5 ms·

And there are several server implementations: https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now#servers https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now#servers

by ptman 5y ago

INTPenis 5y ago
Yeah but none is production ready. I used to host a matrix node with synapse but it's a waste of time because it doesn't scale well and once you realize that there is no way to convert your users over to a better server software. So now I'm just waiting until Dendrite or Conduit become fully featured to deploy one of them instead. I'm looking at matrix hosting long term, and synapse is not long term.
- feanaro 5y ago
  What kind of workload do you need to scale Synapse too? I mean, matrix.org is running on Synapse...
  - d33 5y ago
    I'd argue that matrix.org is not the best advertisement for Synapse then, judging by its performance.
  - nannal 5y ago
    I imagine he was using the sqlite backend rather than something bigger. I've had issues with it when connected to larger groups.
    - INTPenis 5y ago
      No postgres actually. Matrix.org has terrible performance, it's really a proof that synapse doesn't scale well.
      - feanaro 5y ago
        Funnily enough, matrix.org performance has never sucked for me, except maybe a few years ago, and has steadily gotten better since then.
  - INTPenis 5y ago
    I'm not saying I'd reach matrix.org levels, but I am kinda anal about having something that could reach those levels. So that my users won't experience issues. Because once you pick a matrix server implementation you are pretty much stuck with it. Migration would require a lot of hours of converting users, and might not even be possible depending on how the passwords are encrypted. I know people who've been hosting the same XMPP server for decades. So this really shows the immaturity of Matrix. I still believe in it but it needs some more time.
    - feanaro 5y ago
      Well Matrix isn't as old as XMPP yet, so no one could have possibly hosted a Matrix server for decades, but I've hosted Synapse for 5 years now and steadily getting more family/friends on that instance. No problems so far and performance has been steadily getting better. There was a low period when performance was not up to par about two years ago, but ever since that's been fixed, it's been smooth sailing.
    - zaik 5y ago
      I'd say just stick with XMPP and extend the protocol to fit modern needs. If we want an universal chat protocol that's going to last, reinventing the wheel is not going to get us there.
justaj 5y ago
Unfortunately none of them have feature parity with Synapse. In fact, many of them are missing critical features.

And there are several server implementations: https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now#servers https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now#servers

by ptman 5y ago

And there are several server implementations: https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now#servers https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now#servers

INTPenis 5y ago

Yeah but none is production ready. I used to host a matrix node with synapse but it's a waste of time because it doesn't scale well and once you realize that there is no way to convert your users over to a better server software. So now I'm just waiting until Dendrite or Conduit become fully featured to deploy one of them instead. I'm looking at matrix hosting long term, and synapse is not long term.

feanaro 5y ago
What kind of workload do you need to scale Synapse too? I mean, matrix.org is running on Synapse...
- d33 5y ago
  I'd argue that matrix.org is not the best advertisement for Synapse then, judging by its performance.
- nannal 5y ago
  I imagine he was using the sqlite backend rather than something bigger. I've had issues with it when connected to larger groups.
  - INTPenis 5y ago
    No postgres actually. Matrix.org has terrible performance, it's really a proof that synapse doesn't scale well.
    - feanaro 5y ago
      Funnily enough, matrix.org performance has never sucked for me, except maybe a few years ago, and has steadily gotten better since then.
- INTPenis 5y ago
  I'm not saying I'd reach matrix.org levels, but I am kinda anal about having something that could reach those levels. So that my users won't experience issues. Because once you pick a matrix server implementation you are pretty much stuck with it. Migration would require a lot of hours of converting users, and might not even be possible depending on how the passwords are encrypted. I know people who've been hosting the same XMPP server for decades. So this really shows the immaturity of Matrix. I still believe in it but it needs some more time.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    Well Matrix isn't as old as XMPP yet, so no one could have possibly hosted a Matrix server for decades, but I've hosted Synapse for 5 years now and steadily getting more family/friends on that instance. No problems so far and performance has been steadily getting better. There was a low period when performance was not up to par about two years ago, but ever since that's been fixed, it's been smooth sailing.
  - zaik 5y ago
    I'd say just stick with XMPP and extend the protocol to fit modern needs. If we want an universal chat protocol that's going to last, reinventing the wheel is not going to get us there.

justaj 5y ago

Unfortunately none of them have feature parity with Synapse. In fact, many of them are missing critical features.