Do you even need relayd? I think relayd is for extending the existing NAT, i.e. a wireless bridge operation. At least that's how I utilized it in a previous setup. If you want to have your own NAT, I think it's enough to just connect to the upstream wireless network as a client. Not sure if you have to designate the wireless interface as WAN or not.
avidamoeba
joined 1 year ago
Can't say. Personally, I'm running vanilla Ubuntu LTS and rolling my own ZFS, NFS, containers, desktop and so on but "I know what I'm doing." I hardly see a reason to do TrueNAS outside of UI. With that said I would highly recommend to ensure your data sits on ZFS because it protects it from silent data corruption. If I had to choose between Proxmox and TrueNAS and one ensured my data is on ZFS, I'd choose that solution, and then think about other use cases.
What's not to Ike? These systems' development has been long overdue.
Their use cases are a bit different, no? Proxmox is a general hypervisor. You can run whatever you want on it. NAS is one workload that could be run on top of Proxmox. TrueNAS is a NAS first solution, hypervisor second. And that's the overlap with Proxmox. You could think of your core use case:
- Do you want mainly a NAS that can run a few services too?
- Yes
- Perhaps use TrueNAS
- No
- Perhaps use Proxmox and roll your own NAS on top
- Yes
Makes a lot of sense. If chips are integral part of national defense, there should be redundancy. There could be use cases that the military might be interested in that the free market isn't. Intel has the most complete in-house IP for a full platform, from fabs through hardware to software. AMD makes nice CPUs and GPUs but for example their mainboard chipsets are designed in Asia.
I love how they literally ripped off Google Photos' interface, including using the same Material icons. I could navigate it via muscle memory. ๐
Get out of the anti container mindset. Getting started with docker takes half an hour. You need to learn 3-4 commands to use other people's services. Everything is easier than RPMs afterwards.
What are you talking about.. Containers make it way easier to setup and operate services, especially multicomponent services like Immich. I just tried Immich and it took me several minutes to get it running. If I wanted to give it permanent storage, I'd have to spend several more to make a directory then add a line in a file and restart it. I've been setting up services before Linux containers became a thing and after. I'd never go back to the pre-container times if I have the choice.
โ Signal is experiencing technical difficulties. We are working hard to restore service as quickly as possible.
Status page now.
Textbook case of late stage capitalism and a resounding success for Boeing's major shareholders.
You don't migrate the data from the existing z1. It keeps running and stays in use. You add another z1 or z2 to the pool.
If the vdevs are not all the same redundancy level am I right that there's no guarantee which level of redundancy any particular file is getting?
This is a problem. You don't know which file ends up on which vdev. If you only use mirror vdevs then you could remove vdevs you no longer want to use and ZFS will transfer the data from them to the remaining vdevs, assuming there's space. As far as I know you can't remove vdevs from pools that have RAIDz vdevs, you can only add vdevs. So if you want to have guaranteed 2-drive failure for every file, then yes, you'd have to create a new pool with RAIDz2, move data to it. Then you could add your existing drives to it in another RAIDz2 vdev.
Removing RAIDz vdevs might become possible in the future. There's already a feature that allows expanding existing RAIDz vdevs but it's fairly new so I'm personally not considering it in my expansion plans.
Whatever starts with
Ctrl+Alt+T๐