this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2025
129 points (98.5% liked)

Selfhosted

50972 readers
752 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I recently replaced an ancient laptop with a slightly less ancient one.

  • host for backups for three other machines
  • serve files I don't necessarily need on the new machine
  • relatively lightweight - "server" is ~15 years old
  • relatively simple - I'd rather not manage a dozen docker containers.
  • internal-facing
  • does NOT need to handle Android and friends. I can use sync-thing for that if I need to.

Left to my own devices I'd probably rsync for 90% of that, but I'd like to try something a little more pointy-clicky or at least transparent in my dotage.

Edit: Not SAMBA (I freaking hate trying to make that work)

Edit2: for the young'uns: NFS (linux "network filesystem")

Edit 3: LAN only. I may set up a VPN connection one day but it’s not currently a priority. (edited post to reflect questions)

Last Edit: thanks, friends, for this discussion! I think based on this I'll at least start with NFS + my existing backups system (Mint's thing, which is I think just a gui in front of rcync). May play w/ modern SAMBA if I have extra time.

Ill continue to read the replies though - some interesting ideas.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago

Samba or some sort of cloud like sync system like Sync thing or Nextcloud

[–] herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I use a samba mount behind a VPN.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

You should take a look at webDAV

[–] danhab99@programming.dev 5 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I still use sshfs. I can't be bothered to set up anything else I just want something that works out of the box.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago

Isn't that super clunky ? I keep getting all kind of sluggishness, hangs and the occasional error every time I use that. It ends up working but wow, does it suck.

I mostly use samba / cifs clients and it's fast and reliable with properly setup dns and using only the dns or IP address, not smbios or active directory those are overkill

[–] BonkTheAnnoyed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I like the sound of that!

However it looks like has a lot of potential for a 'xz' style exploit injection, so I'll probably skip it.

From the project's README.md : The current maintainer continues to apply pull requests and makes regular releases, but unfortunately has no capacity to do any development beyond addressing high-impact issues. When reporting bugs, please understand that unless you are including a pull request or are reporting a critical issue, you will probably not get a response.

[–] danhab99@programming.dev 2 points 16 hours ago

I am 100% open to exploring other equally zero effort alternatives if only I had the time CURSE being an adult (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ . Is there anything better I should use, hopefully using existing ssh keys please.

[–] maus@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

NFS is still the standard. Were slowly seeing better adoption of VFS for things like supervisors.

Otherwise something like SFTPgo or Copyparty if you want a solution that supports pretty much every protocol.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

I would say SMB is more the standard. It is natively supported in Linux and works a bit better for file shares.

NFS is better for server style workloads

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 23 hours ago

I use NFS for linking VMs and Docker containers to my file server. Haven't tried it for desktop usage, but I imagine it would work similarly.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

NFS is still useful. We use it in production systems now. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

And if you have a dedicated system for this, I’d look into TrueNAS Scale.

[–] CucumberFetish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Truenas Scale works well as long as you don't want any dockers on it. Once you want to run docker images it is easier to install a VM on Truenas and run the docker from there than it is to try to set up custom "Apps"

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Wut? I've got a bunch of dockerhub images running on a scale box

[–] CucumberFetish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 15 hours ago

It is doable, but it is a pain if the docker requires any special config like permanent storage. Getting nginx up and running for mTLS was especially annoying

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 1 day ago (12 children)

NFS is the best option if you only need to access the shared drives over your LAN. If you want to mount them over the internet, there's SSHFS.

[–] BonkTheAnnoyed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

See, this is interesting. I'm out here looking for the new shiny easy button, but what I'm hearing is "the old config-file based thing works really well. ain't broken, etc."

I may give that a swing and see.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm at the same age - just to mention, samba is nowhere near the horror show it used to be. That said, I use NFS for my Debian boxes and mac mini build box to hit my NAS, samba for the windows laptop.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Yeah, Samba has come a long way. I run a Linux based server but all clients are Windows or Android so it just makes sense to run SMB shares instead of NFS.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I've run Proxmox hosts with smb shares for literally a decade without issue. Performance is line speed now. Only issues I've ever had were operator error and that was a long time ago. SMB 3 works great.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 points 1 day ago

My one change: I do SSHFS over LAN, because of guest machines and sniffing potential.

I do NFS on direct wire or on a confidently set up VLAN (maybe).

[–] Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I use exclusively sshfs, including in my lan, is there some downside to it?

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago

SSHFS is slower than NFS due to the encryption and FUSE. It's not a huge difference with a modern CPU and a 1 gbps connection, but it can be significant with an older CPU or a faster network.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Stick with NFS, and use e.g. rsync for backup. Or subversion, if you want to be super-safe.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

NFS is really good inside a LAN, just use 4.x (preferably 4.2) which is quite a bit better than 2.x/3.x. It makes file sharing super easy, does good caching and efficient sync. I use it for almost all of my Docker and Kubernetes clusters to allow files to be hosted on a NAS and sync the files among the cluster. NFS is great at keeping servers on a LAN or tight WAN in sync in near real time.

What it isn't is a backup system or a periodic sync application and it's often when people try to use it that way that they get frustrated. It isn't going to be as efficient in the cloud if the servers are widely spaced across the internet. Sync things to a central location like a NAS with NFS and then backups or syncs across wider WANs and the internet should be done with other tech that is better with periodic, larger, slower transactions for applications that can tolerate being out of sync for short periods.

The only real problem I often see in the real world is Windows and Samba (sometimes referred to as CIFS) shares trying to sync the same files as NFS shares because Windows doesn't support NFS out of the box and so file locking doesn't work properly. Samba/CIFS has some advantages like user authentication tied to active directory out of the box as well as working out of the box on Windows (although older windows doesn't support versions of Samba that are secure), so if I need to give a user access to log into a share from within a LAN (or over VPN) from any device to manually pull files, I use that instead. But for my own machines I just set up NFS clients to sync.

One caveat is if you're using this for workstations or other devices that frequently reboot and/or need to be used offline from the LAN. Either don't mount the shares on boot, or take the time to set it up properly. By default I see a lot of people get frustrated that it takes a long time to boot because the mount is set as a prerequisite for completing the boot with the way some guides tell you to set it up. It's not an NFS issue; it's more of a grub and systemd (or most equivalents) being a pain to configure properly and boot systems making the default assumption that a mount that's configured on boot is necessary for the boot to complete.

[–] BonkTheAnnoyed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thanks for that caveat. I could definitely see myself falling into that

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, it's easy enough to configure it properly, I have it set up on all of my servers and my laptop to treat it as a network mount, not a local one, and to try to connect on boot, but not require it. But it took me a while to understand what it was doing to even look for a solution. So, hopefully that saves you time. 🙂

[–] zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The fact that you say using NFS makes you old makes me feel like fucking Yoda

[–] BonkTheAnnoyed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I can't decide if I'm happy or disappointed that no one suggested I make a Beyowolf cluster.

[–] zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

haha that really brings me back.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago

You intendeth to mean Beowulf? I would mayhaps have seen one ere the break of my college time. Wouldst you tell me more about it?

I think a reasonable quorum already said this, but NFS is still good. My only complaint is it isn't quite as user-mountable as some other systems.

So...I know you said no SAMBA, but SAMBA 4 really isn't bad any more. At least, not nearly as shit as it was.

If you want a easily mountable filesystem for users (e.g. network discovery/etc.) it's pretty tolerable.

[–] renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you already know NFS and it works for you, why change it? As long as you’re keeping it between Linux machines on the LAN, I see nothing wrong with NFS.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Isn’t nfs pretty much completely insecure unless you turn on nfs4 with Kerberos? The fact that that is such a pain in the ass is what keeps me from it. It is fine for read-only though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it's for backup, zfs and btrfs can send incremental diffs quite efficiently (but of course you'll have to use those on both ends).

Otherwise, both NFS and SMB are certainly viable.

I tried both but TBH I ended up just using SSHFS because I don't care about becoming and NFS/SMB admin.

NFS and SMB are easy enough to setup, but then when you try to do user-level authentication... they aren't as easy anymore.

Since I'm already managing SSH keys all over my machines, I feel like SSHFS makes much more sense for me.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

I think ZFS send/receive requires root which can be an issue for security

[–] AppearanceBoring9229@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

For smaller folders I like using syncthing, that way it's like having multiple updated backups

[–] 486@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Syncthing is neat, but you shouldn't consider it to be a backup solution. If you accidentally delete or modify a file on one machine, it'll happily propagate that change to all other machines.

[–] addie@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

You can turn off "delete", but modification is a danger, it's true.

Turning off delete makes it excellent for eg. backing up photographs on your phone. I've got it doing this from my Android to my raspberry pi, which puts them on my NAS for me. Saves losing all my pictures if I lose my phone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] graycube@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'd use an s3 bucket with s3fs. Since you want to host it yourself, Minio is the open-source tool to use instead of s3.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Everyone forgets about WebDAV.

It's a little jank, but it does work on Windows. If you copy a file in, it doesn't show up in the file manager until you refresh. But it works.

It's also multithreaded, which isn't the case for SMB. This is especially good if you host it on SSDs.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

What do you mean SMB isn't multithreaded?

Samba has been multithreaded for a long time

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago

The connections aren't. This didn't matter much for spinning platters, but it does for SSDs.

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 6 points 1 day ago

For all its flaws and mess, NFS is still pretty good and used in production.

I still use NFS to file share to my VMs because it still significantly outperforms virtiofs, and obviously network is a local bridge so latency is non-existent.

The thing with rsync is that it's designed to quickly compute the least amount of data transfer to sync over a remote (possibly high latency) link. So when it comes to backups, it's literally designed to do that easily.

The only cool new alternative I can think of is, use btrfs or ZFS and btrfs/zfs send | ssh backup btrfs/zfs recv which is the most efficient and reliable way to backup, because the filesystem is aware of exactly what changed and can send exactly that set of changes. And obviously all special attributes are carried over, hardlinks, ACLs, SELinux contexts, etc.

The problem with backups over any kind of network share is that if you're gonna use rsync anyway, the latency will be horrible and take forever.

Of course you can also mix multiple things: rsync laptop to server periodically, then mount the server's backup directory locally so you can easily browse and access older stuff.

[–] 3dcadmin@lemmy.relayeasy.com 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I still have to use SAMBA as Win 11 hates NFS with a passion and we have Win 11 boxes here supplied as work machines so no changing. Also wifeys gaming rig is Windows as she don't want to mess around getting stuff to work...
But hey - for everything else it is NFS with all of its weirdness, but it just works a bit better than SMB

load more comments (2 replies)

Sounds like NFS might still be the way to go for you.

For backups personally I use Restic and connect over SFTP via SSH, since that's just built in and doesn't need any configuration.

For more traditional file sharing I use WebDAV with SFTPGo, since I need windows and android compatibility too, and webdav is pretty easy to setup and use.

And I also use Syncthing for keeping some directories in sync between devices.

load more comments
view more: next ›