this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
413 points (96.8% liked)

Selfhosted

53386 readers
121 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
 

Got a warning for my blog going over 100GB in bandwidth this month... which sounded incredibly unusual. My blog is text and a couple images and I haven't posted anything to it in ages... like how would that even be possible?

Turns out it's possible when you have crawlers going apeshit on your server. Am I even reading this right? 12,181 with 181 zeros at the end for 'Unknown robot'? This is actually bonkers.

Edit: As Thunraz points out below, there's a footnote that reads "Numbers after + are successful hits on 'robots.txt' files" and not scientific notation.

Edit 2: After doing more digging, the culprit is a post where I shared a few wallpapers for download. The bots have been downloading these wallpapers over and over, using 100GB of bandwidth usage in the first 12 days of November. That's when my account was suspended for exceeding bandwidth (it's an artificial limit I put on there awhile back and forgot about...) that's also why the 'last visit' for all the bots is November 12th.

(page 2) 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hdsrob@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Had the same thing happen on one of my servers. Got up one day a few weeks ago and the server was suspended (luckily the hosting provider unsuspended it for me quickly).

It's mostly business sites, but we do have an old personal blog on there with a lot of travel pictures on it, and 4 or 5 AI bots were just pounding it. Went from 300GB per month average to 5TB on August, and 10/11 TB in September and October.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I don't know what "12,181+181" means (edit: thanks @Thunraz@feddit.org, see Edit 1) but absolutely not 1.2181 × 10^185^. That many requests can't be made within the 39 × 10^9^ bytes of bandwidth − in fact, they exceed the number of atoms on Earth times its age in microseconds (that's close to 10^70^). Also, "0+57" in another row would be dubious exponential notation, the exponent should be 0 (or omitted) if the mantissa (and thus the value represented) is 0.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

It's a shame we don't have those banner ad schemes anymore. Cybersquatting could be a viable income stream if you could convince the cleaners to click banner ads for a faction of a penny each.

[–] GaryGhost@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Downloading you wallpapers? Lol what for

[–] Bazell@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Looks for me like actions of AI agents.

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 1 week ago

You have to grow spikes and make it painful for bots to crawl your site. It sucks, and it costs a lot of extra bandwidth for a few months, but eventually they all blacklist your site and leave you alone.

That's insane... Can't a website owner require bots (at least those who are identifying themselves as such) to prove at least they're affiliated with a certain domain?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›