EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoTwitter users right nowsh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square369fedilinkarrow-up12.95Karrow-down142cross-posted to: beyondcombustion@lemmy.beyondcombustion.netlefli@lef.li
arrow-up12.91Karrow-down1imageTwitter users right nowsh.itjust.worksEmoDuck@sh.itjust.works to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square369fedilinkcross-posted to: beyondcombustion@lemmy.beyondcombustion.netlefli@lef.li
minus-squareNoodlez@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 year agoMm this could be a problem because server load is too unpredictable. I would actually say just randomize the list, so that it kinda does its own “load balancing” by incentivizing to pick whatever random top one it selected?
minus-squareSquare Singer@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up6·edit-21 year agoYeah, whatever metric. Could also use a mix of number of users, some form of reputation measurement, uptime, etc. I mostly meant that the system should pick a “best server” and recommend that. Smarter people than me can come up with the best metric. But swamping the user with >100 servers to pick from is counterproductive.
Mm this could be a problem because server load is too unpredictable. I would actually say just randomize the list, so that it kinda does its own “load balancing” by incentivizing to pick whatever random top one it selected?
Yeah, whatever metric. Could also use a mix of number of users, some form of reputation measurement, uptime, etc.
I mostly meant that the system should pick a “best server” and recommend that. Smarter people than me can come up with the best metric.
But swamping the user with >100 servers to pick from is counterproductive.