this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
30 points (96.9% liked)

Selfhosted

40183 readers
547 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (25 children)

Feels like your services there just makes http links with extra steps?

Why would I want to use IPFS with those services instead of just online hosting?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (24 children)

Because you won't be paying for distribution.

If you are just hosting data for yourself, sure, go ahead and stick with a regular storage provider. IPFS is useful for the cases where there will be many people who will be accessing that data. The more popular a file is, the more nodes in the swarm will have it and the less it will be requested from your node specifically.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

If I share data on an online hosting I also doesn't pay more for distribution? Or is this for some special cases? I havent checked for a long time but I had over 800Mb/s in like 2010 at OVH and I don't think it has gone exacty down ...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I assure you, IPFS has a cap too.

The question is, it is higher?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"IPFS" can not have a cap, because IPFS is not a service provider. IPFS is a protocol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair enough.

So the IPFS network has a cap. Like OVH doesn't have a cap as it's a company, but their network does.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you trying to really understand how the thing works, or are you just looking for ways to dismiss the thing so that you can remain ignorant about it.

We're talking about data transmission caps (as in, 1TB/month), not in bandwidth (as in 800MB/s) Also, IPFS is a protocol. The "cap" of the network is only theoretically bound by the amount of nodes running in it, but in practice it doesn't really matter because the bandwidth of any single node will always end up being the real bottleneck.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not trying to dismiss this thing, but I see not very many usecases for it. That's why I ask all those questions and the answers are not really fulfilling IMO.

BTW 800Mb/s is sure a cap too in its way, a 100MB/s is just that, capped on one second instead of a month.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)