CondorWonder

Not sure what you mean by this - Nabu Casa has a Zwave device already called ZWA-2 which is fully supported.

Bcache can’t differentiate between data and metadata on the cache drive (it’s block level caching), so if something happens to a write-back cache device you lose data, and possibly the entire array. I wouldn’t use bcache (or zfs caching) without mirrored devices personally to ensure resiliency of the array. I don’t know if zfs is smarter - presumably is can be because it’s in control of the raw disks, I just didn’t want to deal with modules.

For your second scenario - yes you can use md under bcache with no issues. It becomes more to configure but once set up has been solid. I actually do md/raid1 - luks - bcache - btrfs layers for the SSD cache disks, where the data drives just use luks - bcache - btrfs. Keep in mind that with bcache if you lose a cache disk you can’t mount - and of course if you’re doing write-back caching then the array is also lost. With write-through caching you can force disconnect the cache disk and mount the disks.

Check with your provider for SIP server, username and password, and if they have a suggested app (even if you don’t want to use it, it means they have some kind of support). It’s probably in their support pages somewhere.

You don’t need cards to have full bandwidth, they only time it will matter is when you’re loading the models on the card. You need a motherboard with x16 slots but even x4 connections would be good enough. Running the model doesn’t need a lot of bandwidth. Remember you only load the model once then reuse it.

An x4 pcie gen 4 slot has ~7.8 GiB/s theoretical transfer rate (after overhead), a x16 has ~31.5GiB/s - so disk I/O is likely your limit even for a x4 slot.

• overhead was already in calculations

We can’t ever stop this kind of stuff, but with something like fail2ban you can set it up to block on too many failures.

Really though - ensuring your system is kept up to date and uses strong passwords or use a SSH keys is the best defence. Blocking doesn’t prevent them from trying a few times. Moving SSH to a non standard port will stop most of the automated attacks but it won’t stop someone who is dedicated.

This sounds like you’ll need to do a balance operation. Try this first and see if it helps:

btrfs balance start -dusage=0 -musage=0 /

If not you can increase the number to 5 or 10. This operation reallocates chunks on the disk and ensures they’re filled - check https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Balance.html for details.

I use HASS.agent to help manage my Windows desktop and expose various sensors to HA. It can suspend or hibernate the system. It does use MQTT as its connectivity plane.

You get easy access to their addons with a VM (aka HAOS). You can do the same thing yourself but you have to do it all (creating the containers, configuring them, figuring out how to connect them to HA/your network/etc., updating them as needed) - whereas with HAOS it generally just works. If you want that control great but go in with that understanding.

BTRFS has RAID built into the file system - instead of using MD you use BTRFS profiles which tell the system how to handle data.

For instance

• file system data (critical for the file system to function): raid1c3 which means 3 copies of core P file system data on 3 different devices
• user data: raid1 (so duplicating all your data on two different devices)

With this set up you could lose one device (of n, the total doesn’t matter), and not lose any data, and still be able to boot to recover with too much hassle.

BTRFS does block checksums, can scan for bit rot and recover from it, and generally tries to make your data safe. It technically supports raid5/6 for user data, the issue is around unclean shutdowns and a potential write hole where you could lose data, but if your system has a UPS backup and is on a relatively recent kernel it’s not any more dangerous than MD raid5/6 as I understand it.

I’d have to check my iptables syntax again but I’m not sure you want the FORWARD between the networks unless C has a manual route to get traffic for the 192.168.15.0/24 network back via B. You just want to NAT A behind B’s IP on 192.168.38.0/24. I think the forwards are sending the traffic without doing NAT on A.

The phone or browser may be using DNS over HTTP (aka DoH), check if you can disable it for the wifi network. You may have to disable it on the phone or browser to get your desired behaviour - look up directions for your browser.