this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
539 points (96.7% liked)

Selfhosted

61103 readers
688 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:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been trying to upgrade from 10.10 to 10.11 for a while now, as the Android TV app keeps nagging me, and every attempt ended with impossibly long library scan times.

After some thorough investigation, it appeared that a Home Videos type collection causes unending scan (yet to be solved), but also that Jellyfin does a lot of writes to the config directory (either database or metadata or both). Mine's on spinning media part of a ZFS pool. I tried a few performance tuning options, such as testing the config dir with recordsize (similar to block size) of 4K, 8K, 64K, 128K and library scans fell from 30-40 minutes down to 8-13min with 4K-64K. The ZFS tuning wiki suggest 64K recordsize with LZ4 compression for SQLite workloads such as Jellyfin. That seems to work as well as 4K and 8K but likely is faster when reading thumbnails and such.

Note that upgrading to 12-rc3, which is supposed to speed up library scans did not improve scan times for me. Optimizing config/database write speed did. I cross-checked the culprit by experimenting with moving the config dir to NVMe and RAM. Both of those got the scan times down to 8-9 minutes compared to the optimized spinning media's 12-13.

So if you had upgraded (or about to) to 10.11 your library scans are (about to get) dog slow and your Jellyfin's config dir resides on spinning media, optimize its write performance for SQLite.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's a wrapper called jellyfin

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

No, I said remote...

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Anyone using jellyfin should not be exposing it to the public internet.

[–] nibbs@lemmy.zip 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Hi, could you tell me why? I mean, I think I understand the basics of the risk of brute force attacks. My mitigation for the admin account is, not to allow login outside the local network. Users are allowed from anywhere, as my family uses the library. Also my service (there are others) are routed through NGINX.

Do you have tips for external users using, for example, a VPN only for specific addresses / IPs? At least that was an idea I had, but didn't got got around to dig for solutions.

Thanks in advance.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

VPN is the only way I would ever be doing it.

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Why not? Unless you're talking about unauthenticated steaming of media if you reverse engineer a servers folder structure.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It’s not secure. It’s a horrible thing to do

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Do you have any proof that it's not secure?

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The developers of jellyfin themselves say it’s not.

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood some of their communication.

There's the issue I described earlier where it is possible to stream files unauthenticated if you know the folder structure on the video. The devs have responded that they won't fix this. Outside of streaming content, there's no other access through this mean. https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/1501

Then there's the release of 10.11.7 that fixed a number of security issues. https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/releases/tag/v10.11.7 with no major security issues since then. And all the issues were privilagr escalation for a normal user account on jellyfin. So the attacker would already needed to have an account on your server, and only the data that jellyfin could see was at risk, nothing escaped contagion so to say.

They also officially support a reverse proxy set up: https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/post-install/networking/reverse-proxy/.

I have no idea where you've got the idea where they themselves claim it's unsecure to open it to the internet. Of course there's always a risk associated with exposing something, but jellyfin doesn't pose any larger risk than anything else you might publish.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Accessing files unauthenticated……the devs explicitly say they won’t fix it….. and you think that’s not a huge security hole? Software with something like that marked as “won’t fix” is a giant no-no for me. If they’re ok with that, their software should be nowhere near an internet connection.

The person with a fundamental misunderstanding is you.