3 ms·
But isn't it just a clone of the Bitwarden server without any extra feature?
by yewenjie 4y ago
But isn't it just a clone of the Bitwarden server without any extra feature?
- fyvhbhn 4y agoWhat's your point?
- napkin 4y agoNot 'just a clone'. vaultwarden is based on a totally different platform, and is less resource hungry. In particular, it consumes much less RAM.
- chrismorgan 4y agoI’ve been using Vaultwarden for just myself for at least a couple of years now, and it’s at 32MB of disk space (<3MB of icon_cache, <1MB of database, the rest app). The current server process, at six weeks of uptime, is at just under five minutes of CPU time (average usage 0.01% of a core), and just under 24MB of memory used (RSS). That’s feature. (As a matter of fact, it’s grown quite a bit since I started using it; it used to be under 20MB of disk space and 10–15MB of RSS.)
- wpietri 4y agoI really miss seeing numbers like that. I'm in something like my 5th week of a Dropbox support ticket where they seem to think it reasonable that the headless client uses an extra 100MB of RAM every hour, eventually using 20-30GB of RAM, at which point I restart it and watch it start climbing again.
- xani_ 4y agoAlso running on PostgreSQL, not having to spin MSSQL instance
- chrismorgan 4y agoWell, you can opt into using PostgreSQL, but by default it’ll use SQLite, and that’s how I use it. More convenient and probably more efficient in general too.