4mo ago

Would you buy "self-hosted in a box" hardware?

I'm considering a business plan for people getting in to self-hosting. Essentially I sell you a Mikrotik router and a refurbished tiny x86 server. The idea is that the router plugs in to your home internet and the server into the router. Between the two they get the server able to handle incoming requests so that you can host services on the box and address them from the broader Internet.

The hypothesis is that $150 of equipment to avoid dozens of hours of software configuration is a worthwhile trade for some customers. I realize some people want to learn particular technologies and this is a bad fit for them. I think there are people out there that want the benefit of self-hosting, and may find it worth it to buy "self-hosting in a box".

What do you think? Would this be a useful product for some people?

You're viewing a single thread.

107 comments

Isn't that basically just a commercial NAS? Go buy a Synology NAS, or get fancy w/ TrueNAS. You don't need an entry-level enterprise-grade router at all, you can just plug the NAS in anywhere and you're golden. You can usually install a few services like Plex/Jellyfin or HomeAssistant alongside the data storage if you like.
If that's not going to work for you, you probably have a good idea of what will work for you. For me, a tiny x86 server isn't going to cut it, because I want a beefier CPU to run CI/CD for my programming projects, so a beefier, modern CPU is quite valuable. That's totally overkill if all you want is a simple streaming setup with 1-2 transcoded streams.
So I think there are two main markets here:
just give me something that works - these will flock to pre-configured solutions, like Synology or TrueNAS
I want something specific - they'll DIY components together to build their own custom solution
The only other group I can think of is the group that can't afford 1 and doesn't know enough to do 2, but I really don't think that's a particularly big group, and they'd be better off reusing something they already have instead of getting some off-the-shelf solution.
I could absolutely be wrong here, that's just my $0.02.
- Isn’t that basically just a commercial NAS?
  Is it? I haven't bought one, nor have I built a TrueNAS box. I've heard from folks that run applications on a NAS, particularly VMs and containers, but my understanding is that your price-per-unit-compute is really high since that's not what it's optimized for. I've got an old Zyxel NAS, it's quite low-end, and I can't run anything beyond NFS/Samba/audio streaming.
  you can just plug the NAS in anywhere and you’re golden.
  Do they have some kind of VPN or TURN system? I'm expecting that customers will want to access the device outside of their LAN.
  For me, a tiny x86 server isn’t going to cut it, because I want a beefier CPU to run CI/CD for my programming projects, so a beefier, modern CPU is quite valuable
  How beefy? Multiple CPU? If you could buy 4 boxes and have them load balance would that be interesting, or do you have a strong preference for single-box compute?
  I could absolutely be wrong here, that’s just my $0.02.
  Thanks, your $0.02 is exactly what I'm looking for!
  
  price-per-unit-compute is really high
  Well yeah, they're optimized for storage. And if you're starting from nothing, you're going to need storage.
  Synology is your budget home cloud, and it's just good enough to handle basic cloud tasks and small-scale service hosting. If you grow out of it, you leave the Synology NAS for purely data storage, and add another box for heavier compute.
  TrueNAS, on the other hand, is usually overkill for a home NAS setup because it's designed for small-ish business use-cases, so it has a lot more CPU and RAM than you'd need when you only have a handful of users in a home setting. So it can probably handle any CPU workload you throw at it, within reason. It probably wouldn't make a great compiling cluster, but it would do really well hosting things like NextCloud. If you're looking for transcoding, you need to check the hardware and drivers on FreeBSD (maybe it's not an issue, but it's good to check first).
  Do they have some kind of VPN or TURN system?
  How would the router help with that? If you're behind CGNAT, you'll need something external regardless. If you're not behind CGNAT, pretty much any router on the planet can do port fowarding, and many can handle a network-wide VPN if that's what you're after.
  I'm behind CGNAT and I have a VPS that hosts my VPN and routes all traffic using HAProxy over the VPN to my internal devices, and my internal devices maintain a persistent connection to the VPN. It sounds complicated, but it's really just two config files that I'd be happy to share if anyone is stuck. I do have a Mikrotik router, but it's not needed for any of this, I only use it for static DNS routes so I don't hit the WAN when accessing my services by their domain names (and VLAN for ZeroTrust shenanigans, but again, not needed at all). If I didn't have that option, I could always just host a DNS server right on my NAS and do the same thing (any router can set the DNS server over DHCP).
  How beefy? Multiple CPU?
  No, I'm not that productive. I just want it to run builds of my Rust projects, and those can take some time. So 6-8 recent-ish cores is plenty. Right now I'm using a Ryzen 1700, and once I upgrade my PC, I'll move my Ryzen 5600 to it. I want my builds to finish somewhat quickly without interfering with other services on the machine (e.g. if I'm running a build while we're watching a movie, I don't want the movie to stutter).
  If my project grows (i.e. I get outside contributors), I'll need higher specs.
  And yeah, my preference for a single box is storage space. My NAS sits on my desk, and I'd really rather not get a rack setup. More machines means higher power and more space. I do have a couple of Raspberry Pis around for specific use-cases (e.g. one on my TV for RetroPie), but I'd really rather not have a handful of PCs running 24/7. Electricity is pretty cheap where I live, but even then, I'd rather not waste power just because I can get a good deal on servers. My single box uses something like 40-50W, and once I upgrade to my 5600, idle draw will drop another 10-20W (I have a 20-30W floor due to the drives).
  
  I'm just skimming this thread, but paragraph 2 is basically fact. I'm on my second synology box, the UI is simple and I want reliability, I don't want shit to break because of a git push on some bullshit tool. But recently I snatched a Lenovo server and threw proxmox and Debian on it, and also got a vps.
  The synology is actually pretty capable, especially if it can do docker, and if you are willing to venture into (as a beginner) copy/pasting commands from the internet into the task scheduler as a half-assed way to get at the terminal, it can do literally everything that I want. But I'm a geek, why should I keep a stable, reliable system as my only machine? :p
  My synology does files, some docker stuff. Lenovo does a couple docker stuff, BOINC since it's just idling most of the time, and docker for game and related hosting on my vps. Hell, this entire thing could be 'just add a network folder, and install docker and dockge/portainer'.
  Though (paragraph 3) I tried and didn't like TrueNAS. Maybe it's because the synology does it already, I was just exploring, but it has that 'foss feel' where you have no idea what you are doing, even when you know what all the pieces do, and it just kinda is like 'here you go, figure it out' and leaves. I remember the UI being equally... 'designed by a programmer' let's say. It might be powerful but oof, slick it ain't.
- For once I'm #1 in something 🥳

107 comments