4 ms·
I wouldn't call our instance a load test, as it's a legitimate instance available for anyone to use. It's very much production-grade.
by nathanmarz 3y ago
I wouldn't call our instance a load test, as it's a legitimate instance available for anyone to use. It's very much production-grade.
- mdaniel 3y agoI would not want to speak for raverbashing but I feel the same way: I actually can't tell if the bug is with soapbox or with your instance but clicking on the first link from your post practically locks up my browser due to every single Toot getting swapped out "at twitter scale" If one clicks quick enough to jump to an actual post, it seems relatively static so it's hard to tell if the bots are deleting and recreating their posts or what. In true Xitter clone fashion, trying to view the Posts & replies from any one user is "sign in Anyway, all of this is not to detract from your framework announcement as much as to have you consider that it's perfectly fine to label that instance as a load test, that's a fine thing, but calling it a legitimate instance seems to be a potential source of confusion
- nathanmarz 3y agoWe did notice on a less powerful machines the browser getting overwhelmed with the rate of new content (even though we're only streaming 10/s instead of the full 3.5k/s actually happening on the backend). I don't know if the poor performance in this context is due to Soapbox, the browser, or just the hardware. To get a better feeling of Rama's performance on your hardware, I suggest registering an account which will allow you to poke around the whole platform. It takes just a couple seconds to register and we don't send any emails.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- raverbashing 3y agoThis is what I'm calling load test: > The instance has 100M bots posting 3,500 times per second at 403 average fanout to demonstrate its scale.