boxer74

I can't get anthelia to start. I'm pretty sure my config is workable. The container won't start. I'm pulling my hair out with this.

Running 7.2. Always seeing this:

Is anyone able to create an icon for the 45HomeLab HL4?

Thanks for this guide. I've started playing with pangolin as well. Pretty nice software stack. Paired with one of their recommended racknerd VPS's, it costs almost nothing to operate. Curious why you included the section above? Seems this is only needed for "Clients", which I don't quite understand yet.

I noticed this as well. Would be nice to have a borgmatic plugin instead of docker container now that it support zfs hooks to create snapshots prior to backups running. It needs access to the zfs commands so that can't work in a container. If there was a spot in the unraid GUI to edit the config.yaml file that would also be nice.

Can't access SMB shares over tailscale after upgrading to beta 4. Attached is a plugin diagnostic. boxer-tailscale-diag-20241022-171848.zip

Just checking in to see if there is any guidance on this? Thanks.

Hi All, planning out the pools in my new server. I've got 8 disks for the unraid main XFS array, which has dual parity. I also have a pair of nvme drives which will be a zfs pool for docker and vms. I will also likely have a pair of Samsung 2.5" SATA SSD's as a zfs mirror for cache. I have a homelab 15 so lots of room for drives. I want to create a zfs storage pool for my critical shares, such as immich photos, nextcloud data, etc. I have 7x 4TB Ironwolf hard drives available. Some ideas: 1) 2x 2x-drive mirror vdevs 2) 4 disk raidz2 3) 6 disk raidz2 4) 7 disk raidz3. I have about 4TB of data to store on this pool currently. It will grow slowly as I add new family photos. Due to leaving some space for zfs headroom, options 1 and 2 may not give enough longterm capacity for growth, but at least with option 1, it is easy to expand. Since I already own 7 disks, is option 4 outrageous? Let me know your thoughts.

I am already using tailscale through a docker container. It is working as I would like. What is the advantage to the plugin? I suppose it would stay connected even if the array is down. Is that about it?

Any reason to keep using this? Will these features become built-in to 6.12?

Great, thanks!