All Topics
All Topics
Technology
Technology
Design
Design
Programming
Programming
Science
Science
News
News
Gaming
Gaming
Entertainment
Entertainment
Business
Business
Finance
Finance
Sports
Sports
Health
Health
Food
Food
Travel
Travel
Art
Art
Music
Music
Books
Books
Education
Education
Politics
Politics
Personal
Personal
No algorithm. No AI slop. No ads. Just RSS. Pro-human. Indie writers. Real journalism. Open web. Chronological. Hand toasted.

Why switching from Google Photos to a self-hosted server costs more than expected

By

Patrick Campanale

3h ago· 11 min readenInsight

Summary

The author documents their attempt to switch from Google Photos to a self-hosted local photo server, ultimately concluding it's not cost-effective. They detail the hardware requirements (NAS, hard drives, SSDs), software options (Immich, Synology Photos), and hidden costs that add up to over $600 before backups. The article compares the upfront and ongoing costs of self-hosting versus Google Photos' subscription model, finding that for most users, Google Photos is cheaper and more convenient. The author also discusses technical challenges, backup strategies, and the 3-2-1 backup rule, ultimately recommending self-hosting only for those with specific needs like privacy concerns or large storage requirements.

Key quotes

· 5 pulled
The math just doesn't work out for most people. Google Photos is cheaper, easier, and more reliable than anything you can build yourself.
A decent NAS with two hard drives will set you back at least $400. Add an SSD for caching and you're looking at $500 before you even think about backups.
The 3-2-1 backup rule is non-negotiable. Three copies of your data, on two different media, with one off-site. That means your local server isn't a backup solution by itself.
Immich is impressive open-source software that rivals Google Photos in features, but it requires technical know-how to set up and maintain.
For the average person with 50GB of photos, Google Photos at $2/month is a no-brainer. Self-hosting only makes sense if you have terabytes of data or strong privacy requirements.
Snippet from the RSS feed
Your homemade photo server will cost you $600 before you even add backups

You might also wanna read