• Raglesnarf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    because it was super duper easy to setup and the overhead isn’t all that bad for my use case. I am concerned whenever I decide to move/upgrade to something different since my hard drives are in a Windows “Storage pool” or whatever it’s called

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      In all seriousness, if you’re self hosting anything, please learn your way around Docker and Linux. It’s a small time investment up front for huge payoffs. You’ll get more value out of your hardware, and you’ll have a system that’s much more reliable (Windows was not built for 24/7 uptime).

      • constantokra@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        In fairness, I’ve had several machines running versions of windows server with lots of uptime and zero stability issues. But the last time I ran a windows server is was advanced server 2003 so…

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Windows Server isn’t so bad as a server platform, although it comes with a lot of unnecessary overhead, and its container support sucks. Given that containers are really the way to go with self-hosted services now, that makes Windows Server a poor choice.

          But realistically, when most people say they’re self hosting on Windows, they mean regular old consumer Windows, which absolutely hates running for extended periods without rebooting. It’s just not built for uptime.