New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Yes, of course, there are the ideological reasons to selfhost, but I was mainly sticking to the financial ones. If I have a 64GB RAM server that uses 48GB for something else, adding a new app 9or two, or three) that will consume a marginal 1GB each is "practically free" (because I am already paying for the server).
that's not a problem for me to solve
This isn’t an either or situation.
I have one server that holds my production websites because it’s fun. I have carrd and other subscriptions too for my fun quick standup websites.
I don’t self host all. Only what makes sense. Hosted services make sense for everything else.
For example, you can get dirt cheap high storage decent cpu hosting here on LET. Costs less than $10/yr. Why waste time on managing the server, just build your site! Time = money / value
Agreed, there's no reason not to use the resource you already paid. I apologize for hasty writings. Let me rewrite
Only if they find it ok to be cut off if the rental goes away.
Basically owning something vs renting - depends on one’s preferences/lifestyle creep/changing of priorities etc.
No
There's renting and then there's renting. There's a difference between a 99-year leasehold interest in farmland, a 99-year leasehold interest in an apartment that will fall over in 10 years, a regular lease and a rental car.
But I have to go back to my original point - volume. Many people whom I know who are renting real estate constantly complain about removalist costs. If you don't have much data to migrate, the risk of your server "rent" ending isn't super high. I'd say compare Gmail with a BYO domain vs gmail with their own domain.
I feel that most people who use free tiers aren't the ones to start paying for them eventually. If you're looking for a free 1gb, 1vcore VM, which you can otherwise pay $10/yr for, you're probably not going to start paying oracle for the extra RAM at $1/month/GB.
To have no servers at all and be in this forum is like standing naked in public with a small penis. Brave!
After a month or two: New thread opened, "I host all myself again, because i can config how i want."
Most of the servers I'd bought previously were always intended for company projects, and so we ones I wanted to keep got transferred to the company name when they were renewed, the rest were just allowed to lapse or given away.
I only have about 5 or 6 small VPS personally now, just enough to run my personal website and projects. I think it's definitely nice to have a few small VPS like this to clearly segregate work and personal projects, even though normally if I want a new machine for work I'd just manually spin up a VM on one of my dedis.
I don't know why you disagree, but it's simple minmaxing.
Either you minimize the managing time or minimize the cost. Both of them are tied to money because time -> money.
That's oracle. But, there's also more common case, such as Google which demands few bucks each month once the storage usage goes beyond 20GB. And most people accept it because changing their mail is a hassle.
Another one lost to the dark side.
You really missed the point of self-hosting, which to have control of your data and services. Some people have it backwards. They buy cheap vps to host server monitors and then leave their email to online services, whereas it should be the other way around. There's no value to pay for a vps to run uptime-kuma but there is value in securing your mail data and not leave it to someone else to host it for you.
I keep finding nice managed offers, even a shared hosting could handle most (but not all) of my workloads, but if I have to manage at least one, I might as well use the same setup for everything.
I agree. But setting this up properly takes time.
Today, email is critical especially for things like two factor authentication. so reliability is important . At a minimum, you need a secondary MX to relay emails to another mailbox in case of downtime.
Time for maintenance is low after setup.
In the end, the cost is roughly the same, sometimes even higher, than paying for a service that doesn’t monetize your data. But I prefer knowing exactly where my data is stored and how backups are handled.
Haven’t you been there already?
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/195729/only-one-server-just-one-i-can-do-it
If you hate system administration then this a wise decision. But to keep your sysadmin skills polished i think its not wise. You will end up as a GUI expert of some Saas vendor. Or simply called a user, and users are per definition not wise.
What would you pick for remote desktop? I just discovered RustDesk and its really useful for family & friends when I need to troubleshoot something in their PC.
Just use https://github.com/josegonzalez/python-github-backup It is better solution then setting up Gitea to only mirror all repos, this python script not only backup repo but also can issues, PR, releases, etc.
ultraviewer?
Looks nice, thanks. I will try it.
Much of the "grief" around email is about being able to send email so that it doesn't land into people's spam folder. This is a legitimate concern for business, but not for self-hosting, which is on the receiving side. The concern is where your inbox and data is hosted, not how emails are sent.
Two factor authentication? Whitelist IP where webmail is running. Secondary MX? MTAs retry up to 72 hours so it's only a concern when your server is down for a week.
You’re aware emails typically aren’t encrypted, right?
So by your own definition of concern, sending is absolutely a concern.
A kitten dies each time a moronic post like that one gets posted.
So @vitobotta you just added another dead kitten to your tab, congratulations!
"On the wire" data is not a concern. Look, if someone were to try to intercept my Paypal 2FA code sent over email, they're not going to wiretap HE or GTT and intercept a billion emails just to catch one email. That code could be sitting unencrypted in some SMTP relay server in some data center, but it's irrelevant because no one knows about it. What they will do is try to access my INBOX, which is the final destination.
Assume everything over email is unencrypted because there's no guarantee that some relay won't break protocol and transmit in plain text or log your email content into a log file.
That’s not my point. Email is critical for me.
My concern is not only avoiding lost emails. I also need to receive emails even if my main mail server is down, to receive 2FA codes for example.
This is totally achievable, and I have done it, but it’s not very simple and it requires an additional server.
Good deliverability is not hard to achieve with a clean IP and proper configuration.
Once you have a large enough number of production servers to look after, you start to want someone else to manage your personal stuff. At least I do. It's fun until it becomes a burden.
it's very straightforward actually. deploy your mailserver as a kubernetes daemonset using host networking. given the kubernetes posts the OP has done with hetzner servers, I'm surprised he hasn't tried/done it already.
Except storing your sent email basically amounts to storing your inbox. It’s not the same thing as a 2fa code at all.