111
Do you selfhost your own blog/website?
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
111 points (99.1% liked)
Selfhosted
39677 readers
420 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:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
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.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is a bit fuzzy. You seem to recommend a VPS but then suggest a bunch of page-hosting platforms.
If someone is using a static site generator, then they're already running a web server, even if it's on localhost. The friction of moving the webserver to the VPS is basically zero, and that way they're not worsening the web's corporate centralization problem.
I preferred this advice.
Other comments were talking about pros and cons of self-hosting, so I tried to give advice for both approaches. I probably could have been clearer about thay in my comment though. I edited the comment a bit to try and clarify.
I have some static sites that I just rsync to my VPS and serve using Nginx. That's definitely a good option.
If you want to make it faster by using a CDN and don't want it to be too hard to set up, you're going to have to use a CDN service.
Self-hosted CDN is doable, but way more effort. Anycast approach is to get your own IPv4 and IPv6 range, and get VPSes in multiple countries through a provider that allows BGP sessions (Vultr and HostHatch support this for example). Then you can have one IP that goes to the server that's closest to the viewer. Easier approach is to use Geo DNS where your DNS server returns a different IP depending on the visitor's location. You can self-host that using something like PowerDNS.
Agree. And hard to get security wrong cos no database.
Yes but this can just be a drop-in frontend for the VPS. Point the domain to Cloudflare and tell only Cloudflare where to find the site. This provides IP privacy and also TLS without having to deal with LetsEncrypt. It's not ideal because... Cloudflare... but at least you're using standard web tools. To ditch Cloudflare you just unplug them at the domain and you still have a website.
Perhaps its irrational but I'm bothered by how many people seem to think that Github Pages is the only way to host a static website. I know that's not your case.
That's not Cloudflare-specific; you can use any CDN that supports origin pull in the same way :)
Definitely agree with this! That's one of the pain points of "cloud" services - they really try to lock you in, making it impossible to swotch.
You still need encryption between your CDN and your origin, ideally using a proper certificate. Let's Encrypt (and other ACME services like ZeroSSL) are pretty easy to use, and can be fully automated. I'm using Let's Encrypt even for internal servers on my network, using a DNS challenge for verification instead of a HTTP one.
It's strange because out of all the possible options, Github Pages is the most basic. You have to store your generated files in a Git repo (which is kinda gross) and it barely supports any features. For example, it doesn't support server logs or redirects.
I guess it's popular because people already use Github and don't want to look for other services?
It can be self-signed though, that's what I'm doing and it's partly to outsource the TLS maintenance. But the main reason I'm doing it is to get IP privacy. WHOIS domain privacy is fine, but to me it seems pretty sub-optimal for a personal site to be publicly associated with even a permanent IP address. A VPS is meant to be private, it's in the name. This is something that doesn't get talked about much. I don't see any way to achieve this without a CDN, unfortunately.
Yes, and the general confusion between Git and Github, and between public things and private things. It's everywhere today. Another example: saying "my Substack" as if blogging was just invented by this private company. So it's worse than just laziness IMO. It's a reflexive trusting of the private over the public.
What's the downside you see from having a static IP address?
I think you're looking for a reverse proxy. CDNs are essentially reverse proxies with edge caching (their main feature is that they cache files on servers that are closer to a user), but it sounds like you don't really care about the caching for your use case?
I don't know if any companies provide reverse proxies without a CDN though.
What's the downside to having one's phone number in the public directory? There's no security risk and yet plenty of people opt out. It's personally identifying information.
Exactly.
The difference is that an IP of a VPS doesn't directly connect back to you. It's in the provider's name. Some providers let you change your IP address to a different one for a small fee.
Yes yes, I know all that. The fact remains that a permanent IP associated with an individual is personally identifying information. Even the variety in browser requests counts as such according to the GDPR, and that is usually pooled with lots of other users. This is clearly a level above that. It's why, for example, I would not use the VPS for proxy web browsing: zero privacy.