Comment on 18% of people running Nextcloud don't know what database they are using
u_tamtam@programming.dev 1 week agoI’m saying this based on real world experience
And do you think I would spend my time engaging if that wasn’t from my own very “real world experience” of lessons learned the hard way?
Bringing-up “diminishing returns” as if this was an optimisation game also doesn’t do this justice. Take the typical “household FOSS package” with software names often brought up in here: a nextcloud instance, a photo-sharing service like immich, private instant messaging, a software forge, a subsonic-compatible audio/video streaming server, a couple php websites like wallabag and RSS aggregators.
An Intel Atom CPU and 4GB of RAM is plenty sufficient for all that, and will cost you single digit USD a month, granted you put the (one-time) effort to tune and balance those services. Would you run all the above from upstream’s docker files, I can guarantee you that you would deem this (perfectly fine otherwise) server underpowered for the task at hand (and would probably go for a 10th gen or so Intel Core CPU, quadruple the RAM and 3-6× the energy cost in the process).
And that’s the point I’m making here: a self-hosting community of tinkerers should (ideally) know better, for the ethics’ sake of keeping the process environmentally friendly, and not wasting other people’s money.
Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
You seem to be obsessed with optimising one resource at the expense of others. Time is a limited resource, and even if it only takes 5 minutes to configure all of your containers to share a single db backend (it will take longer than that even if you just have 2), you’re only going to save a few MB of RAM. And since RAM costs roughly $2.5/GB (0.25 cents/MB) your time would have to be worth very little for this to be worthwhile.
On the other hand, if you’re doing it to learn more about computers then it might be worthwhile. This is a community of hobbiests, after all…
u_tamtam@programming.dev 1 week ago
If you want to push it and paint me as obsessed about something, then let it be this: providing this community with on-topic and reasonable advice
This is false, and you should read once again my previous message illustrating why: on a decent “self-host”-friendly machine, the same software may work very well, or not at all, depending on whether the user would engage with very basic configuration. This goes beyond RAM (memory isn’t the sole shared resource), and I’m adamant that the alternative (which was “pretending that the problem doesn’t exist” turned into “throwing money at the problem”) is unreasonable.
Or more importantly: the extent to which you can self-host out of sheer luck and ignorance like you suggest is very limited. If you don’t want to engage with a minimum amount of configuration, you might bump into security issues (a much broader and complex subject) long before any of the above has a material impact.
Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Besides RAM, what resources do for think you’re saving? Not CPU cycles or IO ops, because you’re processing the same amount of DB queries either way. Not power consumption, since that isn’t affected by RAM utilization. Maybe disc space? But that’s even cheaper than RAM.
You’re mischaracterizing what I said. My point is that running multiple DB processes on a server isn’t going to have a significant impact on system load, if all other factor are kept constant.