JonathanM

@drpeppershaker@ainuke Only devices with IP's on the defined LAN_NETWORK container variable are allowed access. You can add additional network ranges to that variable.

Have you done the MSI stuff?

To be honest, I'm never on the dashboard anyway, I go directly to devices or clients. However... that's pretty bad for them to be spending time setting up a billboard instead of fixing real issues. It's almost like the company has a split personality from the hardware engineer side to the software side.

Yes. USB protocol is not nearly robust enough. Do you have an NVME slot?

AFAIK, PIA does not offer dedicated IP addresses, only dynamic. There may be providers that do, but I'm not aware of any. Also, PIA only forwards one port through, it doesn't expose the entire range of ports, and then only through select endpoints.

Attach the intact zip file to your next post in this thread.

FAT32 doesn't support linux permissions.

Unclear that they understand the issue. We are approving the post in situ with the approve button while viewing the topic, not via the moderator CP. That means we are, indeed, seeing all unread posts in the topic at the same time we are approving the post. As an additional twist, viewing a post but NOT approving it leaves the post as unread, even though it's been viewed in the thread as many times as you click on it. I know this, because I sort posts oldest to newest, and don't approve foreign language posts I don't understand, and the stupid post stays in my unread filter until it's either approved and viewed, or I mark site read after getting through the rest of the backlog while avoiding the posts stuck at the top of my unread filter. Annoying to say the least.

If that doesn't work, try copying the make bootable script to your home folder and make sure the executable bit is set, then try executing it from there. Also, if your test rig supports UEFI booting, you could rename the EFI- folder to just EFI and see if it will boot using UEFI instead of bios.

Not sure what portion you are saying is not difficult. Proper security while exposing services IS difficult, because of all the interconnected moving pieces that are involved. VPN simplifies it greatly, because you only have 1 service and port to audit and keep up to date.

Did you try sudo ./make_bootable_linux

The docker folder plugin would be a good place to look.

Depends on your skill and knowledge level. If you are asking the question because you don't know how to do it safely, the answer is no. Each bit of exposure increases your risk. If you follow best practices, the risk is quite low. Threats are constantly changing, so exposing any device to the internet requires ongoing learning and adapting.

Preclear doesn't care if a drive is mountable. Mountable means there is a valid filesystem in place, preclear writes zeroes to the entire capacity, which will remove any filesystem anyway.

You must use a USB memory stick, SD cards aren't supported.

I'm not familiar with that implementation, I'm using nextcloud, mariadb, collabora and swag all as separate containers and the server end is very reliable. I have had the mobile client flake out on me every once in a while, but it always catches back up when I restart it. I'll be interested to see how the all in one container implementation treats you.

Why not correct that? It seems to me keeping a few watts worth of infrastructure on a UPS is a whole lot easier than what you are trying to do. I suppose if you have shed loads of spare time on your hands and no money, then it would make sense, but considering you can get a small UPS for USD$40, I wouldn't think it would be worth the hassle. Unless, of course, you are looking for an educational challenge and don't really care how much time you spend. In that case, I'd try using a plain ethernet cable, crossover cables haven't been required since 10/100 maximum speed was normal. Give the interfaces on Unraid and the raspi sequential static IP's on a different private subnet than what you are using for your main setup, and see how you get on.

You are not going to like my opinion, but here it is. Watercooling belongs in showpiece desktop rigs that are only turned on when someone is sitting next to them. They don't fail "nice", and have multiple hardware killing failure modes if they die while unattended. 24/7 closet servers should have large chunks of metal to absorb and radiate heat by convection only if necessary, so the temperature rise is slow and predictable if a fan fails and the software can alert and take action before things get completely out of hand. Watercooling means coolant leaks and pump failures over the long term, both of which are no big deal if you are sitting beside the rig when it happens and can take immediate action, but can cause collateral damage if not acted on immediately.

Since the desired end result is the full throttle usage of resources, it can greatly increase electrical usage, heat output, and possibly reduce the life of your equipment if those factors aren't properly accounted for. However, that doesn't mean people don't WANT mining apps in CA, more likely it's just not typically a good candidate for a container since it requires exclusive full access to a fast current video card, which isn't normally a container requirement or even a consideration.

Very few. I would be scared to push more than 2 drives worth of power through a single SATA connector. They are very poorly designed. Not saying molex are ideal, but they can handle LOADS more current than a SATA connector.

Have you matched what's in the mappings to the internal configuration of each app? If the app is set to write to /Downloads and the mapping is /downloads you will end up writing to /Downloads inside the docker image.

Yes, a 2 disk Unraid parity with only parity slot 1 used is functionally a RAID1, but only the data disk actively participates in reads, and so limits read speeds to single drive specs. Just like any RAID volume, once the disks are mounted out of band, they must be resynched. I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to use the disk as parity, Unraid will happily overwrite any disk you assign to the parity slot, regardless of content. The basic array is the only pool that uses the Unraid special sauce parity code. All other pools are either XFS single volume or some flavor of BTRFS with or without software BTRFS RAID. Think of the Unraid parity array as the mothership, all the subordinate pools can have automatic moves scheduled between the individual pool and the main array, but lateral moves from pool to pool aren't natively supported. You could always script your own solution to move between 2 different sub pools, they are all exposed in the filesystem. The overarching /mnt/user filesystem is simply a fuse of root directories on the main array and all the pools, and there are rules that can be applied for which pools participate. That is available by default, it's how the "cache" pool was developed to begin with and it's still usable that way. You create a user share with cache:yes and assign which pool you want to receive writes, and when the mover runs it moves the data from /mnt/poolname/sharename to /mnt/disk1/sharename, and the data is useable at /mnt/user/sharename no matter where the actual data resides.

Do you want to securely overwrite the drives? That is what is typically meant by wipe, and takes a long time. If you just want to format the drives, which just writes a blank table of contents, that's much quicker and you can do that just by selecting each array drive in the GUI and changing the desired format type, and for the cache pool you can do a blkdiscard on the device names.

Pretty much correct, but because Unraid uses EVEN parity, a 2 drive parity array is a copy, not inverted. You could always add multiple BTRFS RAID1 pools in addition to a 2 drive parity array. Cache is somewhat of a misnomer if you compare it to traditional caching, it would be more accurate to just refer to them as pools with a fuse filesystem that merges all the root folders on all participating pools. You can schedule moves between the parity array and individual pools.

dlandon may have a better option, but I would suggest passing the whole drive through to the VM temporarily to allow Windows to check and clean the NTFS filesystem. Linux isn't the best at resolving NTFS (windows) file system errors, better to allow a windows system direct access.