3 ms·

Sure, I agree with everything you have written here and I'm familiar with the CCC. But that doesn't make "Arch organization hosting content on CCC's infrastruc

Sure, I agree with everything you have written here and I'm familiar with the CCC. But that doesn't make "Arch organization hosting content on CCC's infrastructure is self-hosting" a true statement. Self-hosting is hosting it yourself. It doesn't depend on the entity size, the willingness nor if you run your own ASN, self-hosting simply means what it says on the tin. And if you're not hosting it yourself, you're not self-hosting.

walrus01 6y ago
Technically yes, then they're not 'self hosting'. But say they rented a dozen powerful 1U servers on a fast pipe in colocation somewhere, and did it all themselves, would they be self hosting? Or no? Because they wouldn't own/run the datacenter itself, or the ISPs and IX point that were their upstreams. Or would it be self hosting only if they owned the bare metal versus leasing it? Anecdotally I have seen a lot of instances where medium to large sized non-profit, open-source project related organizations become the umbrella organization containing a number of smaller community initiatives within them.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Think it's important we set the context to be around Arch Conf, where we're talking about hosting recordings from the conference. In this case: Yes, if they do run their own servers for storing the content, they are self-hosting. No, doing your own peering is not needed to be classified as self-hosting. No, you don't need to run your own data center to be self-hosting. Unless you want to self-host the servers themselves, then yes, running your own data center is needed. I think the most important point is "hosted" vs "self-hosted" here, where hosted is letting someone else run the servers where you put the content, while self-hosted is you running the servers where you put the content.

3 ms·

Sure, I agree with everything you have written here and I'm familiar with the CCC. But that doesn't make "Arch organization hosting content on CCC's infrastruc

by capableweb 6y ago

walrus01 6y ago
Technically yes, then they're not 'self hosting'. But say they rented a dozen powerful 1U servers on a fast pipe in colocation somewhere, and did it all themselves, would they be self hosting? Or no? Because they wouldn't own/run the datacenter itself, or the ISPs and IX point that were their upstreams. Or would it be self hosting only if they owned the bare metal versus leasing it? Anecdotally I have seen a lot of instances where medium to large sized non-profit, open-source project related organizations become the umbrella organization containing a number of smaller community initiatives within them.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Think it's important we set the context to be around Arch Conf, where we're talking about hosting recordings from the conference. In this case: Yes, if they do run their own servers for storing the content, they are self-hosting. No, doing your own peering is not needed to be classified as self-hosting. No, you don't need to run your own data center to be self-hosting. Unless you want to self-host the servers themselves, then yes, running your own data center is needed. I think the most important point is "hosted" vs "self-hosted" here, where hosted is letting someone else run the servers where you put the content, while self-hosted is you running the servers where you put the content.