this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
37 points (91.1% liked)

Selfhosted

56958 readers
1474 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.

  7. No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been interested in self hosting a small variety of services yet I'm so confused on where to start. What would you guys recommend for a server machine?

My main uses (and some of the services I think are appropriate for the use case) are:

  • 1tb photo, video storage, push/pull (immich)
  • 512gb total shared between downloaded music storage (navidrome) and pdf/ebook storage (calibre)—all pull only
  • 1tb movies/tv storage on a media server (jellyfin)
  • 512gb storage for random junk or whatever, plus a file transfer push/pull (syncthing..? or nextcloud?)
  • potential basic bio website hosting (near future)
  • potential email hosting (distant future)

anyways with that all said i have a few questions:

  • what server should i buy if i want to expand storage in the future? should i just build a pc with like 3x1tb storage, or 6x1tb storage w/ redundancy? totally confused about the concept of redundancy lol
  • any thoughts on the services im suggesting? especially for file transfer
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Forester@pawb.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're going to want a NAS. Most consumer systems can only wire up four ssds/nvme ssds. If you want 6 TB of capacity and you want redundancy. That means that minimum raid one and 12 TB of capacity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels

[–] inanimate_carbon_rod@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

3 x 3TB drives in RAID 5 will get you (almost) 6TB with only 9 TB total capacity, and its more fault tolerant than RAID 1. Also, its cheaper to replace a single 3TB drive than a single 6TB drive, so it'll spread your costs out more.

I have 4 x 3TB drives on RAID 5, and I got three of them used for cheap at a local computer place. They'll have lower life expectancy, but unless more than one dies at a time, it'll be cheaper to replace them as they do. I got 1 drive new, and plan to replace 1 drive every year or two with new.

Unless you need speed, definitely consider HDDs, especially NAS grade. They're slower read/write, but your use case shouldn't need a lot of have read/write. HDDs--even the premium ones--are way cheaper than SSDs right now with the shortage, and have great longevity.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

3 x 3tb in raid5 can lose one disk of three. That is less redundancy than raid 1 on 2 disks, plus a write penalty.