Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


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.

Why are more and more people I know choosing self-hosting over SaaS?

aaPanel_teamaaPanel_team Member, Patron Provider

Lately, I've noticed more and more people I know replacing some of their subscription services with self-hosted apps.
What I don't get is that while it can save you some money, it also creates a lot of extra hassle. You have to handle your own data backups, and if the system goes down, you have to fix it and get it back up and running.

«1

Comments

  • It's fun, and the feeling of self-control.

  • We don't make profit anyway, so why to pay subscriptions?

    Just self-host. If it goes, it goes. We just learn.

  • aaPanel_teamaaPanel_team Member, Patron Provider

    @nghialele said:
    It's fun, and the feeling of self-control.

    Yeah, they've mentioned that sense of ownership to me too. It only really feels like it's yours when you host it yourself.

  • @aaPanel_team said:

    @nghialele said:
    It's fun, and the feeling of self-control.

    Yeah, they've mentioned that sense of ownership to me too. It only really feels like it's yours when you host it yourself.

    The learning journey is also the fun part. How to get this shit going, how it work behind the wheel.

  • aaPanel_teamaaPanel_team Member, Patron Provider

    @lovelyserver said:
    We don't make profit anyway, so why to pay subscriptions?

    Just self-host. If it goes, it goes. We just learn.

    As they say, learning comes at a cost too, haha.

  • DPDP Administrator, The Domain Guy

    Some people just like being in control of everything themselves.

    Usually due to privacy and security reasons.

  • aaPanel_teamaaPanel_team Member, Patron Provider

    @DP said:
    Some people just like being in control of everything themselves.

    Usually due to privacy and security reasons.

    That’s true. There are also some people who simply don’t want to deal with all that hassle.

  • Who said SaaS would save your data backups? They get paid to get blamed, similar to the consulting industry.

    Thanked by 3WyvernCo tentor OhJohn
  • I have a server , why not to self host

    Thanked by 1WyvernCo
  • rpqurpqu Member

    Because it adds layer of complexity, especially when it's not compatible.

  • Many factors why this is happening. The censorship and even the involvement with global politics by bigtec, doesn't provide their clients the needed data trust. As trust is a requirement when sharing data with the saas provider.
    Also its surely easier to run saas because of generative AI. Its like free consulting, before ai, building saas you needed many IT experts. The cheap cloud also helps a lot. Here at LET you can have a 10$ dollar per year vps! Building a frontend and backend with end to end monitoring is now done within a few hours apposed to many months of expensive IT development and hardware selection/installation/configuration work.

    This period is very similar like the introduction of personal computing and commoditized server computing as it removed the need for expensive IBM/HP/CRAY hardware and consultants.

    Thanked by 3WyvernCo tentor forest
  • so I won't get ransomed over some 5Tb corn

  • As hardware performance demands grow, I am shifting from self-hosting to a local setup on two mini PC at home. Only a small vps serve as a web server if I must expose it to the public.

    • Most of the extra hassle is setup; ongoing maintenance is often automated (ex: docker automated pulls / nextcloud all-in-one etc)
    • You have to do backups either way, and it's often easier/more straightforward to back up something self hosted
    • Rate of self-hosting getting better is faster than the rate of SaaS enshittification
    Thanked by 1tentor
  • fatchanfatchan Member, Host Rep
    edited October 20

    The "lot of extra hassle" is completely overestimated, while the increased price and risks of vendor lock-in are usually ignored.

    As an example, if one were to self-host a website and it used 100TB of outbound traffic, that will cost maybe $100/mo for a dedicated server to run. Meanwhile if you host this on AWS, you would pay $5,000-$10,000 for bandwidth alone.

    In my workplace, from very early in a project I proposed to purchase and rack some more hardware with our ISP and self-manage rather than put everything on cloud infrastructure. Now we're spending 5 figures (monthly) on combined AWS+Azure costs for various internal software we developed to serve maybe 300 staff.

    The cost to run these if they were self-managed rather than using a big cloud provider and their managed products (lambda, sqs, sns, rds, documentdb, opensearch, s3, cloudfront, etc) would be 10% of that. And no, the other 90% wouldn't be taken up by extra work involved, that's a myth invented by sales people rather than technical people.

    18 months later my manager (probably under pressure from the finance department) consults me asking what it would take to move to self-managed. No surprise -- it's a huge undertaking. All along the way I had been outspoken about costs and warned of vendor lock-in, but was told not to worry about it, so we continued down the rabbit hole. Our applications use numerous proprietary managed services, and our entire development, deployment and CI/CD is catered to the cloud. It would take non-trivial amount of time and effort to change everything to use our own systems.

    For larger companies, if things are in budget nobody cares that much. For individuals, hobbyists, and smaller businesses (what you will find on lowendtalk), it hurts the conscience to over pay so much and be totally beholden to cloud providers when we know it can be done more cost effectively ourselves.

  • rpqurpqu Member

    @fatchan said:
    18 months later my manager (probably under pressure from the finance department) consults me asking what it would take to move to self-managed. No surprise -- it's a huge undertaking. All along the way I had been outspoken about costs and warned of vendor lock-in, but was told not to worry about it, so we continued down the rabbit hole. Our applications use numerous proprietary managed services, and our entire development, deployment and CI/CD is catered to the cloud. It would take non-trivial amount of time and effort to change everything to use our own systems.

    Because their hail Mary is No one got fired for using AWS.
    People assert that they need proprietary solution because of scaling problems. FOSS solutions exist and often it's more than enough. Then, they thought, "can we do it when our userbase grow 10x". Well, there's no taboo in stress testing the staging.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    @DP said: Usually due to privacy and security reasons.

    Yes, there are so many exploits these days and the AI boom will find even more. If you host your own, yes, you have to keep it updated, but you also have much lower attack surfaces and you you isolate them in one VM per app, then you have even better security.
    As for privacy... it depends. If you host at home, perfect, if you host it in some DC, then, no.

    Thanked by 1BlackNerd79
  • @aaPanel_team said:

    @lovelyserver said:
    We don't make profit anyway, so why to pay subscriptions?

    Just self-host. If it goes, it goes. We just learn.

    As they say, learning comes at a cost too, haha.

    As they say, learning comes with many rewards.

  • stable_geniusstable_genius Member
    edited October 20

    @aaPanel_team said:

    @DP said:
    Some people just like being in control of everything themselves.

    Usually due to privacy and security reasons.

    That’s true. There are also some people who simply don’t want to deal with all that hassle.

    Having to bathe feels like a real hassle to me, if only I could hire someone to do it on my behalf, a gig worker who would take a bath in my place.

    I bet there's an app for that, if only I could find one that offers workers nearby.

    Thanked by 1Hayzee
  • The free allowance for SaaS is too small.

    Thanked by 1tux
  • rpqurpqu Member

    @blockmarkdown said:
    The free allowance for SaaS is too small.

    It's a trap.

  • tentortentor Member, Host Rep

    @elliotc said:
    As hardware performance demands grow, I am shifting from self-hosting to a local setup on two mini PC at home. Only a small vps serve as a web server if I must expose it to the public.

    I have seen a lot of people who call "local setup" (home labbing) as self hosting instead and refusing to call hosting at VPS as "self-".

  • tentortentor Member, Host Rep

    @Maounique said:
    If you host at home, perfect, if you host it in some DC, then, no.

    As long as server at datacenter is properly secured, I don't see any reason to claim it is not "private". Unless you are targeted by three letter agencies, but I would not feel safe even at home either in this case.

    Anyway, if we take a scenario of non-encrypted drives in the datacenter, it is still more private than SaaS, as it takes significantly more effort to get it for any third party.

    Thanked by 1stable_genius
  • a higher percentage of data security.

  • It is different depend on stand point.
    For personal, it is better to just self host. App not need to highly available or fault tolerant. And many case it is cheaper or even faster to do this

    For small-middle or some large companies, uptime and less maintenance is important, they don't want application have downtime, but they don't want to cost much money to hire people, buying hardware, renting rack or doing network etc... just want to focus to their application, so cloud provider (or managed 3rd party services) come and make money in here. And with application need temporary large scaling for short peaking time, this actually cheaper than buying large hardware from beginning.

    For very large company, actually cloud cost can be much expensive than they do self host on large scale, so they back in building their own datacenter.

    Thanked by 1BlackNerd79
  • Autonomy
    Adventure
    Articulate advances
    Absolutely any aopportunity
    Allays adverse adjusted acosts

  • @aaPanel_team said:
    You have to handle your own data backups,

    You should always create your own backups.

    Thanked by 1stable_genius
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited October 20

    @tentor said: As long as server at datacenter is properly secured, I don't see any reason to claim it is not "private". Unless you are targeted by three letter agencies, but I would not feel safe even at home either in this case.

    Look, in a DC the surface of attack is too big. If you have your setup in a cloud, or a regular VPS host, lowend or not, you have to worry about various panels, various tenants with guest to host escapes and elevations and we have the admins to worry about as well. Also, DC IPs are MUCH more bruteforced than residential ones.

    Three letter agencies will have to jump through extra hoops to target your home setup as well and you can be sure they will visit your house too if they get a warrant for your DC, besides, in a DC they can spy on you without you being aware, while at home that is more difficult.

    Yes, a properly secured DC is pretty safe, but nothing beats your UMB (under my bed) hosting regarding security, your lower attack surface, NAT, tailored firewall, weird ports setups, lower bruteforcing and scanning, because who is scanning for an MTA or web server vulnerability on residential dynamic IPs, and you definitely don't have to worry about guest to host escapes since you are the only tenant in your virtualization server.

    I know that is mostly about security, but your data is not private if there is a security breach at your cloud provider, besides, you have to give it your name address etc. while dynamic IPs at home are shielding you from that, unless a warrant is issued, while for your provider a panel vulnerability is enough.

  • rpqurpqu Member

    @Maounique said:

    @tentor said: As long as server at datacenter is properly secured, I don't see any reason to claim it is not "private". Unless you are targeted by three letter agencies, but I would not feel safe even at home either in this case.

    Three letter agencies will have to jump through extra hoops to target your home setup as well and you can be sure they will visit your house too if they get a warrant for your DC, besides, in a DC they can spy on you without you being aware, while at home that is more difficult.

    Yes, a properly secured DC is pretty safe, but nothing beats your UMB (under my bed) hosting regarding security, your lower attack surface, NAT, tailored firewall, weird ports setups, lower bruteforcing and scanning, because who is scanning for an MTA or web server vulnerability on residential dynamic IPs, and you definitely don't have to worry about guest to host escapes since you are the only tenant in your virtualization server.

    Man, I definitely need basement hosting host. Preferably inside dungeon

Sign In or Register to comment.