this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
158 points (92.0% liked)

Selfhosted

40173 readers
1067 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I saw this post today on Reddit and was curious to see if views are similar here as they are there.

  1. What are the best benefits of self-hosting?
  2. What do you wish you would have known as a beginner starting out?
  3. What resources do you know of to help a non-computer-scientist/engineer get started in self-hosting?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 61 points 3 months ago (20 children)

The big thing for #2 would be to seperate out what you actually need vs what people keep recommending.

General guidance is useful, but there's a lot of 'You need ZFS!' and 'You should use K8s!' and 'Use X software!'

My life got immensely easier when I figured out I did not need any features ZFS brought to the table, and I did not need any of the features K8s brought to the table, and that less is absolutely more. I ended up doing MergerFS with a proper offsite backup method because, well, it's shockingly low-complexity.

And I ended up doing Docker with a bunch of compose files and bind mounts, because it's shockingly low-complexity. And it's just running on Debian, instead of some OS that has a couple of layers of additional software to make things "easier" because, again, it's low-complexity.

I can re-deploy the entire stack on new hardware in about ~10 minutes (I've tested this a few times just to make sure my backup scripts work), and there's basically zero vendor tie-in or dependencies that you'd have to get working first since it's just a pile of tarballs and packages from the distro's package manager on, well, ANY distro.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (7 children)

btrfs with its send/receive (incremental fs-level backups) is already stable enough for mostly everything (just has some issues with raid 5/6), and is much more performant than zfs. And it is also in the linux kernel tree (quite hugely useful). Of course, if more zfs-like functionality is what you look for.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

"Already stable enough"

  1. no it isn't.
  2. if fucking should be, it's been around 15 years!
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

My only experience with btrfs was when trying out Opensuse Tumbleweed. Within a couple days my home partition was busted, next time it was another partition. No idea if the problems could be fixed as these were fairly new installations to give Opensuse a try and I couldn't be bothered to fix a system that's troubling me from the very beginning.

Between all the options that just work (TM), btrfs is the one I've learned to stay away from.

EDIT: that was four or five years ago

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)