151–160 of 307 posts
Self hosting is appealing but I’m worried about exposing my home IP to the world. Is this something to be worried about
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not _exactly_ as easy, you also need a valid https cert, and set up a cronjob to renew it. And for some other reply here, "as easy as it was in 2003" really doesn't mean "easy" :v
> Not _exactly_ as easy, you also need a valid https cert, and set up a cronjob to renew it. Web servers like Caddy automate this for you: you just indicate that you want HTTPS for a particular site and the rest is taken care of for you (in the case of public sites and HTTP-01 challenges, at least). Link: https://caddyserver.com/docs/quick-starts/https Even Apache2 has mod_md which does pretty much the same thing (sa…
> if you want to Dockerize it, then Docker related stuff is required i.e. Kubernetes Yeah... I'm not surprised the author gave up on it, but you absolutely do not need to use k8s if you're dockerizing something like a blog. I'm a little baffled at this sentiment.
More people should try to self host things again. Seems that people are forgetting how things work and instead use services that does it for them at some cost. Self hosting is rarely complicated. It's also easy to achieve better performance and lower cost in many situations.
I'm still not convinced that self hosting is cheaper though. Where I live, both the electric grid and Fibre connections are unreliable, and the ISP charges about $3/month for a static IP. Assuming 2.5W for a RPi, it takes 1.8kWh a month, costing around $0.25 for electricity. This also has the downside of using residential IPs, having to deal with CGNAT/NAT if the ISP has no static IPs, exposing your home IP, slow dis…
OTOH, if you have to deal with double NAT, good luck with that hot garbage.
I self host and use a RPi 3B+. Actually I have a total of 3B+ but only one is actually doing anything for the website. I have my database running on a RPi 4b with 4gb. I could easily consolidate to a single Pi but early on I had different plans for each one but just keep 'em running for no good reason. I'm fortunate in that I have a static IP. Initially I was using NOIP and it worked great but then noticed my IP addr…
I do similar with the VPS and reverse proxy, but use a wireguard tunnel from my home device to the VPS to allow nginx to hit my local device instead of forwarding a port. Avoids punching a hole in your local network, avoids issues when your home IP changes, and ensures nothing ends up going over the internet in the clear.
If you don't need all that cloud operations/deployment infrastructure, self hosting a website from home in 2023 is as easy as it was in 2003. Get a DDNS, do the NAT port forwarding, run some apache/nginx/whatever and push your files with sftp or similar to the server. In contrast to 2003, upstreams got better -- even Germany has average upstream speeds of 20mbit/second nowadays [1]. With 20mbit/sec you can do quite s…
My problem is that I have never been able to purchase residential internet that allowed me to open port 443 or port 80.
One thing to be mindful of is security. The last you want is for your setup to be compromised, be used to send spam/botnets and then getting perma-banned from your ISP. I would argue it's a lot less risky just to put your static site on S3/Github etc.
You don’t get perma-banned from your ISP for getting malware. That’s pure FUD. Far more people (at least 2 orders of magnitude) end up infected with malware and become members of botnets from just clicking dumb shit. They don’t get banned from the ISP either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My problem is that I have never been able to purchase residential internet that allowed me to open port 443 or port 80.
Why do ISPs do this? Is there a legitimate reason or they just feel that their clients don’t host these services so they might as well block the ports for safety?
An ISP I've used in the past hasn't allowed self hosting on a standard plan but has allowed on a plan you need to ask for specifically.