Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Vaultwarden is a lot easier to self host than Bitwarden

But like all community-made open source stuff, If you want to use it for "production" stuff you should invest in audits and contribute/fund development



I've been self-hosting Bitwarden (and giving them money) for a few years now, it is really easy with Docker and a reverse proxy. What kind of challenges did you encounter with Bitwarden?


Vaultwarden uses fewer resources and runs fine on a $5 digital ocean VPS where I had some issues with Bitwarden. I hardly have to remember that I'm running it myself.


Resource usage is a fair point. My home computer is 64 cores and 1TB RAM so I don't even notice Bitwarden running.


Last time i checked you needed a MS SQL db...


https://bitwarden.com/help/database-options/

"All Bitwarden self-hosted server deployments, except for unified, ship with an MSSQL Express image by default."


> Last time i checked you needed a MS SQL db...

For real? That would mean a requirement for a software license that costs about $1,000 for the cheapest option.


There is a new Unified one that can use SQLite and other options. I have been using that one for a year or more


It is all included in their Docker compose file.


I use Kubernetes

But also what about the whole lifecycle?

I can easily deploy a HA Postgres cluster that is backed up for me. I'd have to do the same thing to back up BW.


Don't know much about HA (it looks like Bitwarden does this through Helm https://bitwarden.com/help/self-host-with-helm/), but backup is a matter of simply copying files: https://bitwarden.com/help/backup-on-premise/




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: