this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
Self Hosted - Self-hosting your services.
14882 readers
6 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
- No harassment
- crossposts from c/Open Source & c/docker & related may be allowed, depending on context
- Video Promoting is allowed if is within the topic.
- No spamming.
- Stay friendly.
- Follow the lemmy.ml instance rules.
- Tag your post. (Read under)
Important
- Lemmy doesn't have tags yet, so mark it with [Question], [Help], [Project], [Other], [Promoting] or other you may think is appropriate. This is strongly encouraged!
Cross-posting
- !everything_git@lemmy.ml is allowed!
- !docker@lemmy.ml is allowed!
- !portainer@lemmy.ml is allowed!
- !fediverse@lemmy.ml is allowed if topic has to do with selfhosting.
- !selfhosted@lemmy.ml is allowed!
If you see a rule-breaker please DM the mods!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are so many concepts to learn about! But if the SSH tunnel improves the the available useful bandwidth compared nginx/wireguard, it might be worth looking into it too. Thanks!
nah it's more that I really don't understand wireguard an that I'm to incompetent to learn to correctly configure it so that it only tunnels a few ports, if you're looking to use ssh tunnels I'd recommend this tutorial from jeff geerling: https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/ssh-and-http-raspberry-pi-behind-cg-nat
Thanks! In the end I converged to setting a WireGuard tunnel and using the iptables to route the connections to port 80 and 443. I did look into ssh tunnel, and the reason I chose not to use that is because from what I could gather (from what some people say, I don't know enough myself to assess this) WireGuard tunnels are more optimized for performance than the ssh tunnel.