Orkopaede

Great, it worked on the first try. Thank you very much for your help!

Unfortunately not, I have two active tunnels, could that be a problem?

Not necessarily, but if there was a choice, it would make things even more convenient. For my specific case, wg0 or, more precisely, wg1 would be enough.

Hi, Thank you very much for your work. The plugin works as it should. I am almost only connected to my server via VPN, so the question is whether the plugin could be extended so that it can listen to other interfaces? Like wireguard (wg0), for example. Would it be possible to simply adjust the wol.cfg to achieve this? The service probably needs to be restarted via the CLI?

Okay, so what is in the Log, maybe there are some more information's.? You can also try to use OpenVPN: See here

Hi, I assume you're talking about the Wireguard built into Unraid. I personally use the Docker gluetunvpn and then route my other containers through the gluetunvpn container. Something like this: You have to activate the advanced view for this. The gluetunvpn setup can be a bit challenging but the documentation on github is quite helpful.

Hi, I have a Wireguard tunnel for which, like all the others, a bridge network is created so that everyone can communicate with it. Assuming I have understood the settings under Setting->Network Setting->Enable Bridging correctly. I have connected my container to this bridged network so that it can only communicate via the Wireguard tunnel. So far, communication works and curl ifconfig.io gives me the IP from the other end of the tunnel. For security reasons, however, I think it would be good if this container could not communicate with the rest of the server's interfaces.? As far as I understand, this would be possible if Unraid did not get its own IP on this interface. The question is what would the approach be, or more specifically, how would you do it via the CLI? Or is there another way? I think one way would be to set up a wireguard docker and set up the corresponding dockers with --net=container:wireguard. But I thought if Unraid already comes with Wireguard... I would be very happy to receive a few tips or links to read. Thank you in advance.

Okay, I found it... I looked at the group membership of nobody in the cli of the Syncthing container, which of course did not have group 33 (sshd/http). Where should he get that from...... I think the easiest thing would probably have been to assign the folders to the 100 users group. But well, I've learned something again. In any case, thanks a lot for your help.

I did a short test again to check if I understood the topic of access rights correctly. I took the sshd group away from nobody and then tested the following and it works as expected.

Ok, I'll try that. I really hoped that if I gave the user nobody the group sshd he would be able to access it too. I also just saw that the Nextcloud folder belongs to the user group. However, the user nobody also has the group user. Is there an easy answer why it's not working like that? I mean that's the hole point why it shouldn't run with root account. Right?

Yes that is correct, and i want Syncthing to take these files/folders and put them on my other syncthing machine. The folders are setup as "send only". And it's on the sending machine which i have the permission problem.

It's the Nextcloud Data Share located here: /mnt/user/Nextcloud

Hi, Unfortunately, I have a problem with the access rights to individual folders. Some folders are created and edited under the user sshd. With this folder I get the error message "permission denied". The container gets the PUID GUID from the user nobody i.e. 99:100. So I thought to work around the problem I add the group of sshd to the user nobody. The folders have read and write permissions for members of the group (rwxrwx---). If I try to create or delete a file in the corresponding folder via the UnRaid cli with, for example, "runuser -u nobody -- touch file1.txt", it also works, but it doesn't seem to work in the container. Is there any other reason why this error can appear? If I start the container with PUID:GUID 0:0, it can access everything as expected... However, this is not a good idea, as we know. Does anyone have a tip for me? Thanks in advance.

Could it be that there is a problem with access rights and therefore nothing is written to the log files? The files: user/appdata/nextcloud/data/nextcloud.log and user/Nextcloud/nextcloud.log are both empty.

Hello, does anyone have any tips for me? I really didn't want to completely reinstall it.

Hello, I have a problem with my Nextcloud. When I open the URL in the browser I get the message: Internal Server Error. I don't get any error messages in the log. Is there another place I can look for error messages?

Thank you for the explanations. So for the next time. Is there a way for me to look for these options? Yes, i mean it's working. I think we will see next time i have a problem.

Hi, and thank you for the help. This worked for me. I guess i have to look for a good for a good tutorial to get a better understanding for Docker and all this configuration options. For example this: i guess "noVNC WebGUI" is to open the network path and "NOVNC_PORT" is to tell the contain to route vnc to the port.? So "NOVNC_PORT" is a Container or Docker specific Command? But that probably a question for a different thread/topic.

Hi, first of all. Thank you for your work. I use a lot of your plugin's and Container's. Currently i'm trying to route the network traffic of your firefox and jdownloader container through the Gluetun container. I do that with: Extra Parameters: --net=container:gluetunvpn Network Type: None The Problem is that both container try to listen on port 5900 for the VNC-Server. So the container which is up at first can start normally. Is there a way to change that port? This maybe a stupid question because this isn't the right way to do it any way. But i'm pretty new to unraid and docker so that was the first idea which came to my mind.