Healthchecks.io Now Uses Self-hosted Object Storage

19 points by danlamanna a day ago on lobsters | 6 comments

pyfisch | a day ago

[on OVH:] Unfortunately, over time, I saw an increasing amount of performance and reliability issues.

[on UpCloud:] Unfortunately, over time, the performance of UpCloud object storage deteriorated as well.

Does someone know the reason why the object storage performance deteriorated over time at two different providers?

bugsmith | a day ago

I don't but I can throw in Hetzner as another European provider having stability issues with their object storage offering. Their subreddit is full of people choosing to migrate away. Which is sad because the general consensus seems to be they are an otherwise excellent cloud provider.

zipy124 | 14 hours ago

My guess is just due to the current political climate, the european replacements are becoming more popular and are struggling under load.

nelson | a day ago

healthchecks.io is so great. I love moving to self-hosted, particularly for a small service like this. Too bad it's more expensive, but they don't have access to the economy of scale.

A little surprised at the choice of btrfs. The post says it's because it's better than ext4fs, no argument here! I'd have gone with ZFS with two disks but maybe that's not an option? Even in 2026 it's still a PITA to add ZFS to arbitrary Linux environments. I self-host stuff with Proxmox now, which makes it easy.

eduard | 17 hours ago

Just use FreeBSD :) and you will avoid all the frustration of using ZFS with Linux.

heavyrain266 | 14 hours ago

Highly recommend setting it up with custom NanoBSD images.