I have been wondering for some time whether and also have an advantage over centralised services in terms of the CO2 emissions. This is a very important question if we are to believe the predictions that we will face an enormous growth in demand as progresses.

Are there any studies, findings or evidence to support this?

@tobi I'm sorry that I don't have any studies to back this up, but personally I think its the other way around. Decentralized Networks, if used in the same way and from as many people as the big centralized ones, will likely be more power consuming. The main reason would be IMO the more efficient infrastructure of the big centralized Networks, like the giant data centers of Facebook, Google or Amazon.

@tobi most servers reside in the same datacenters as the centralised hardware. Why should there be a (big) difference? And if there is one, why should there be a positive one? Big datacenters can massivly optimize there energy consumtion, which you can not do with only a few servers.

@benni @tobi

in the future consider the hardware which you need for selfhoting as part of your internet router which has allready it´s own powersupply (opional with solar power)

@Nachbarschaft a mastoinstance has large requirements for storage, even for a few persons. if everything is copied everywhere this would be a very large negative influence on energy consumption. @tobi

@benni @Nachbarschaft
For the moment: thank you all for your thoughts. I'll be right back on topic when I've worked through the links.

@benni @tobi

don´t have to copy everything - just the messages of contacts you want to follow...

mastoinstance need an architecture which might be indeed not the best for self hosting - but you know that there are other options in the fediverse which do the job much better...

@tobi what maybe makes a difference are adblockers or adfree content. But this has per se nothing to do with centralisazuon.

@tobi @tobi There is a distinction to make between federated network, which still required a server and P2P networks which don't and are decentralized.
So I think that P2P networks can reduce the energy needs for public content hosting. It will be interesting to compare the Youtube and peertube comsumption for hosting the same content.

@LaBecasse @tobi

PeerTube is still based on a Clint/Server model - right?

@Nachbarschaft Yes and no. In peertube, you upload a video on a server. The server stores videos and metadata information. But the server is also a #webtorrent peer, and all viewers of a video become also a peer of this video. So the more a video is watched, the more the video is shared. It is the reason why peertube server can be small.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!