4 ms·
I have a similar take with slightly more recent experience. When it came down to it the resource requirements for an IPFS node were pretty insane relative to t
by kkielhofner 3y ago
I have a similar take with slightly more recent experience.
When it came down to it the resource requirements for an IPFS node were pretty insane relative to the "value" provided and by many takes it still basically didn't "work".
I understand it's not the same thing at all but in the days of running a web server on nearly anything than can handle many thousands of requests/sec an IPFS node running on the beefiest hardware we could throw at it ate tremendous amounts of system resources and bandwidth for double digit requests per second, and even then it would frequently time out and/or get into various unrecoverable states necessitating a service restart. We had to run a cluster of them and watch IPFS nearly melt the hardware...
We tried every IPFS implementation available and ended up having to use the "least worst" while also adding a lot of instrumentation, health checks, etc around it just to keep it up and running in some kind of consistent, usable fashion.
- aftbit 3y agoI briefly ran an IPFS node, I believe working towards the same project that you are discussing. It ate my home network: drove my packet loss into the 10% range and somehow convinced my core switch (a Brocade ICX6610) to send all traffic to every port. When I saw every port on my upstairs switch blinking like crazy and tcpdump showed traffic intended for a downstairs server arriving at my upstairs workstation, I pulled the plug and told free he was on his own.
- kkielhofner 3y agoThis was for an internal project, but yeah your experience sounds about right.