Selfhosted
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!
view the rest of the comments
Depending upon how many users you are looking to host, Lemmy instances are not very taxing. Most instances are on quite modest hardware.
I host an instance for myself. I have subscribed to many communities (10-20), and I run it on a 1 CPU + 1 GB RAM DigitalOcean droplet. However, the Lemmy instance was OOM-killed already once, and I expect that I have to upgrade eventually.
The droplet costs $6/month.
That's strange, from what I've read a VPS like that should be able to handle at least 20 concurrent users.
Are you running anything else on the VPS?
Nope nothing else. Sadly.
Really weird. Might be a bug.
I can't find anyone else reporting memory usage problems. Maybe you could ask in the support community and see if anyone else has encountered the same problem.
Your VPS should be more than enough and you shouldn't have to spend more money because of a software issue.
would swap help?
"If you need to use the swap, you're doing it wrong" -- That's what I learned long ago. And it has held up so far.
Interesting. I've never heard that. I use swap all the time and it's saved me from OOM scenarios. I'm currently limited on RAM so maybe it makes more sense for my situation.
zramand other compressed swap approaches can help too (with less of a performance hit) although I use real swap as a fallback. Some would recommend usingzswapin that case, but I still want compression in ram to be heavily prioritised but YMMV.I have a laptop with an NVMe drive, and even using a swap on NVMe is orders of magnitude slower than RAM. Usually as soon as you have to swap, everything grinds to a halt quickly, and more stuff stacks up. You can decide for yourself, if you'd rather die a slow death or a quick death.
Yeah I definitely get that. By default, swap is supposed to be secondary to ram, usually swappiness is configured that way. I was not implying that swap was a replacement for RAM, just that it might save you from OOM situations in exchange for some performance dips.
Right? Like, my "first" machine had 512MB of ram in an era where most people were running 4GB. SWAP made more modern distributions possible for me. I mean, then again, that wasn't so much a choice than the harsh reality of growing up broke!
(My ACTUAL first machine was more like 64MB, but I never did much with it)
Right? Like, my "first" machine had 512MB of ram in an era where most people were running 4GB. SWAP made more modern distributions possible for me. I mean, then again, that wasn't so much a choice than the harsh reality of growing up broke!
(My ACTUAL first machine was more like 64MB, but I never did much with it)