this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2026
158 points (97.0% liked)

Selfhosted

59939 readers
308 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.

  3. Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.

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

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

ok, to start with, if you need a POSIX interface to the filesystem, you already have an SSH connection to that server, and don't need much stability across multiple clients, SSHFS may do just fine. For a homelab, that is likely the case.

now, if you're hosting a web server that needs data distributed across drives/nodes, data redundancy, and the usage is primarily programmatic, closer to a CDN's or machine learning pipeline than a single user browsing files; then you want an S3-compatible solution. The S3 API makes it easier to plug it into your application, while allowing you to migrate to a different one - which I'm actually currently doing for a MinIO deployment at work.

[โ€“] dan@upvote.au 1 points 1 month ago

if you need a POSIX interface

SSHFS isn't POSIX compliant. It doesn't support hard links, file locking, atomic renames, full support for changing file permissions, umasks, and probably other things.