Self Hosted - Self-hosting your services.

17071 readers

4 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

No harassment
crossposts from c/Open Source & c/docker & related may be allowed, depending on context
Video Promoting is allowed if is within the topic.
No spamming.
Stay friendly.
Follow the lemmy.ml instance rules.
Tag your post. (Read under)

Important

Lemmy doesn't have tags yet, so mark it with [Question], [Help], [Project], [Other], [Promoting] or other you may think is appropriate. This is strongly encouraged!

Cross-posting

!everything_git@lemmy.ml is allowed!
!docker@lemmy.ml is allowed!
!portainer@lemmy.ml is allowed!
!fediverse@lemmy.ml is allowed if topic has to do with selfhosting.
!selfhosted@lemmy.ml is allowed!

If you see a rule-breaker please DM the mods!

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

Zoe8338@lemmy.ml

dogmuffins@lemmy.ml

testman@lemmy.ml

Traefik (and eventually Vaultwarden when I get there) (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 days ago by trilobite@lemmy.ml to c/selfhost@lemmy.ml

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've tried unsuccessfully to get Valutwarden working without a proxy. See here. Any request with https leads me to the SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG error, while via http I get the "Loading wheel" running indefinitely.

Despite the top of the page here suggests you can run Valutwarden without internally without proxy, my experience suggest that this is not the case and have tried on different VMs getting the same error. So seems like the only way is going via proxy. From what I've read, people seem to suggest that Traefik is the way to go. So I'm thinking of setting it up on my same VM as Valutwarden.

Note that my network is behind a pfsense install on another hardware machine. DNS forwarding is enabled with unbound. Will installing Traefik require changes to pfSense config? Looks like it may be the case from here. For now all I want is getting Vaultwarden going; later down the line I'll learn how Traefik can benefit the rest of my homelab.

I'm trying to work out the simplest way of getting Vaultwarden going using a minimalistic proxy, as there seems to be no alternative to not having a proxy going. Thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DarkSirrush@piefed.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Ah, that's fair. Their documentation is fully up to date now, but imo their example configs suck for beginners.

I will note that anything that can be done in the compose file can be done as a config file instead, with the exception of traefik.enabled=true if you are using a container whitelist instead of a blacklist.

It took me ages to set up, but i now have auto configuration of 95% of containers that need to be reverse proxied, without binding ports (just use the 'expose' option instead of 'ports' in docker compose).

But yes, all the guides and example configs insisting on using container labels instead of the dynamic config files make it feel way more bloated and confusing than needed.