this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
3 points (80.0% liked)

Self Hosted - Self-hosting your services.

11419 readers
1 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

Important

Beginning of January 1st 2024 this rule WILL be enforced. Posts that are not tagged will be warned and if not fixed within 24h then removed!

Cross-posting

If you see a rule-breaker please DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I can't help but feel overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of self-hosting modern web applications (if you look under the surface!)

Most modern web applications are designed to basically run standalone on a server. Integration into an existing environment a real challenge if not impossible. They often come with their own set of requirements and dependencies that don't easily align with an established infrastructure.

“So you have an already running and fully configured web server? Too bad for you, bind me to port 443 or GTFO. Reverse-proxying by subdomain? Never heard of that. I won’t work. Deal with it. Oh, and your TLS certificates? Screw them, I ship my own!”

Attempting to merge everything together requires meticulous planning, extensive configuration, and often annoying development work and finding workarounds.

Modern web applications, with their elusive promises of flexibility and power, have instead become a source of maddening frustration when not being the only application that is served.

My frustration about this is real. Self-hosting modern web applications is an uphill battle, not only in terms of technology but also when it comes to setting up the hosting environment.

I just want to drop some PHP files into a directory and call it a day. A PHP interpreter and a simple HTTP server – that’s all I want to need for hosting my applications.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, containers could be the way – if every applications would come in a container or it were super easy to containerize them without the applications knowing it.

Can I run half a dozen of applications in containers that all need port 443 and how annoying is it to set it up?

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, you can just map the internal 443 port to another port outside of the container and then reverse-proxy them all.

[–] dogmuffins@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

this.... is not the way.

If you have containers named a, b, and c which all want port 443 then you don't bind any of them, just point your reverse proxy to a:443 b:443 and c:443. The containers just need to be on the same network.

Also there's a footgun with the approach you mentioned which I only just learned - exposed docker ports bypass iptables. So even if iptables is denying access to anything other than 80 & 443 docker container exposed ports are still accessible.