this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

1928 readers
7 users here now

Rumors, happenings, and innovations in the technology sphere. If it's technological news, it probably belongs here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello, all. I'll start this post off with - this is a test. :P I have the same topic posted at /r/... seeing if I get any l<3ve over here!!! I hope so!!! LemmyNet for the WiN!

I have two domains that I pay for... lets call them domain1.com and domain2.com. I'm running a Bitwarden docker container that uses nginx to serve the website... its address is bitwarden.domain1.com .

I'm running a HUGO website with Apache2... its address is domain2.com .

I have one local IP address; currently, I forward ports 80 & 443 to the local IP of the Bitwarden VM. So... thats my issue; I don't understand how to forward these two different services to the domains that I want them on... I've read about Apache2's vhosts - but the websites are on different VMs, and the Bitwarden docker container uses nginx.

I've thought about condensing and putting both services in one VM; but theres still the apache2/nginx issue. I've heard someone mention I should use a third VM to route the traffic to the correct local IPs - but I don't know what software I'd use.

I've thought about using a Cloudflare tunnel for one of those services; but I don't really want to pay, and aren't sure how fast a free Cloudflare tunnel would be - this might be a solution for the Bitwarden service, as I'm the only one accessing it...

Does anyone have any suggestions? I'm sure I'm just novice enough that I don't see the obvious solution - and I'd love to get both sites up and running. Thanks for any input or help!!!

pAULIE42o . . . . . . . . . . . /s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you're going to be jumping straight into text based config files.... Caddy's Caddyfile format is a lot easier to work with then nginx configs IMO.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, I've been self hosting for a few years now, haven't really had the need to jump into a text config for NGINX yet (apart from the rare custom configs some services need, but those are still done in the GUI). Caddy has it's draws, as does traefik, but I think it's easier to learn the concepts with the ease of use a GUI offers!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, yeah. That is true, a GUI would be easier for someone to learn. But once you do, config files are way faster.

Honestly, I first moved to traefik (from caddy) because it let me put my proxy configuration next to the application it's for. (When I was using docker-compose files to manage this.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I seriously considered traefik for that convenience alone! When I inevitably outgrow this setup, traefik is the next stop, for sure.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I live mostly on the command line - I'm not afraid to edit .conf files by hand and its how I do most all things - maybe that's why I'm having trouble with this setup!! LOLZ