• insomniac@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably good advice but not exactly relevant. The person was hosting a server in their house and got raided for unrelated reasons and all their electronics were seized. Had they hosted in a data center or at least had off premises back ups, this wouldn’t have happened.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought one of the points of the fediverse was to not be centralized in data centers that are more easily controlled. It’s supposedly supposed to be easy and relatively cheap to spin up your own instance on your own hardware. Just outsourcing to a data center I think goes against what the fediverse promised.

      • PapstJL4U@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fediverse does not use magic. They are bound cabels and cpu.

        In average any datacenter wil have a better connection to everywhere else.

      • kakes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree.

        It’s about control of the platform. A datacenter isn’t going to start making administrative decisions about the “business direction” of your instance. They can shut the server down, but so could a thunderstorm on a home server.

        Even if the data center did (for whatever reason) administrate an instance, the idea of federation still holds because users get to decide if they like the decisions being made - regardless of who is making them.

      • insomniac@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like anything, it’s a trade off. The fact that you can do whatever you want is the good thing. As long as everyone isn’t in the same datacenter, it’s fine. There’s datacenters all over the planet.

        If you’re self hosting, you can mitigate the risks by having some kind of contingency plan though. Just having backups in another location would have made it possible to get back up after the interruption. Now, this instance is probably just screwed.

        Data centers aren’t inherently bad and neither is self hosting. But there’s different risks that need to be planned for.

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re self hosting, you can mitigate the risks by having some kind of contingency plan

          Like a degaussing loop hidden in the door frame?

          Just having backups in another location would have made it possible to get back up after the interruption

          Oh. Not that kind of contingency plan

          • Arael15th@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Like a degaussing loop hidden in the door frame?

            I deeply enjoy that your mind has a rail for this train of thought to run on

      • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seems like a nice goal, but in the end aren’t you geographically limited to where ISP’s offer equivalent upstream bandwidth? Even then there are caps sometimes and other ways we still get controlled.