Iceman24

Is there a point to using the SSL port at all for, whether connecting to NPM externally or internally, if you use the force SSL option which effectively gives you SSL anyways? Thinking about it, it seems as if it's double SSL getting to where you're going. I don't know if that requires anything to work harder, but after discovering I could force SSL on apps that didn't even offer it, I wondered what the point of using SSL for any specific apps was in the first place? It would seem to only deal with SSL for NPM and not any other apps you use it to connect with as the most efficient and simplest option. Do I have this right?

I can dump one and keep one as XFS single cache drive for now, maybe adding another later if issue is resolved. I will need regular backups of data though from the cache drive that will house Dockers, etc. Edit: I'd much rather get drives that work, but which ones are those? I can't find an answer.

I'm stumbling across this issue just before I setup my new build for unRAID. I have 2 970 EVO PLUS 500GB's I was going to use a cache pool using BTRFS. Guess I won't bother with that, can't hardware RAID them with current hardware, not going to get anything else to do that. I want redundancy with them, that's why I bought 2. Should I just get different SSD's? If so, which ones are good with no issues?

That can't be true, as I never changed any docker settings.

Thanks, but from prior research NAT Reflection isn't the recommended way to handle such routing. It's recommended to leave it off and use Split DNS, so I am determined to keep it configured that way. Even if nothing else worked, I'd rather work around it be using port 443 internally/externally for NPM and workaround that port being unavailable for unRAID GUI, which I don't access remotely anyways.

Other than switching unRAID's ports from 80/443 to something else and switching NPM from 1880/18443 to 80/443, is there a better way to setup access to an app that I access from both inside and outside my network that no app I'd access it from allows you to set local and remote ports to use depending on whether you're connected to your WiFI? My issue is that for something like Nextcloud which I'd self host, setting it up via the reverse proxy (which I'd much rather do than just using port forwarding, which I'm trying to get away from for all my apps and utilize NPM instead), causes the issue of NPM by default uses different internal ports than it does external, so it's not practical to reconnect to my server with the Nextcloud app whether I'm inside my network or away every time I need to use it. I have Split DNS setup, but it doesn't change the port, so this doesn't work. I don't want to use Pure NAT or whatever variant of NAT that isn't really the right way to go about it. I've been trying to find out the best way, which might be with HAProxy with pfSense, which is what my router is, but it's setup seems complicated and I don't really know for sure if it does work like that based on research I've done anyways. If I swapped ports with unRAID like I first mentioned, this seems like it was solve issue the easiest, but I'm not sure if that would cause issues or annoyances that aren't worth the hassle. I just want to be able to use the same server IP/Address whether inside or outside my network. Some apps allow this with some of the apps on my unRAID, but not Nextcloud, and not a couple others.

Did the issue logging into the UniFI controller ever get resolved? I read about it in this topic, but never saw a resolution. I'm encountering the same thing when connecting through the proxy, whether externally or internally. The UniFi app works fine though using the proxy. I've read elsewhere that people have applied some sort of "referrer" code, but I tried sticking it in the advanced section and mostly just knocked the proxy host offline. Some lines of code that apparently resolved it was the following. location / {\n\ proxy_set_header Referer \"\";\n\ proxy_pass https://localhost:8443;\n\ proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;\n\ proxy_set_header X-Forward-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;\n\ proxy_set_header Host $host;\n\ proxy_http_version 1.1;\n\ proxy_set_header Upgrade \$http_upgrade;\n\ proxy_set_header Connection \"upgrade\";\n\ }\n\ It does work with Firefox, but not with Chrome.

Can the external and/or internal ports be changed for this app? Whether I wanted to use different ports when coming in from outside, instead of 80 and 443, or possibly use 80 and 443 internally, which I realize would make me change it for unRAID, but I wanted to know if doing either would cause issues with anything? Also, is port 80 needed anyways? I use only SSL.

I'm trying to setup Nginx Proxy Manager for the first time, having never setup Nginx Reverse Proxy. I read about how easy it is, but I don't really know what to do and I can't find any guide to get started, to at least get one service going. Can someone help me out, please? Edit: I was able to get one up and running, oddly enough using the service's SSL port, but getting to it via port 80 through my router without SSL. NPM bounced me over to the SSL port, as confirmed by firewall log. I now have SSL setup, but it says cert doesn't match domain, even though it works. I am using subdomain, so I tried generating another cert for the domain including the subdomain and that did work. Do I have to create certs for each subdomain I use? Wouldn't a wildcard come into play here? I didn't see any option for that in the settings. I keep editing this post again and again after I keep figuring things out. I'm learning so much. Heh heh. Another edit: It seems as if we just add all our subdomains into one cert to make this happen. Is that the best way to do it?

I'm considering this board for a new Unraid build. I'm not too familiar with how shared LAN ports for IPMI work. I did some reading, but still have questions. Is the 210 NIC better than the 219 one from Intel? I've read on the Intel forums from an Intel rep that main difference is that the 210 has 802.1qav, which as far as I know, I wouldn't be using. I know the 210 is quite popular for server NIC's, so I'd rather use that, but I don't know that I should even bother with using Link Aggregation across 2 ports for my Unraid server. I'm not convinced I'll reap any benefits performance wise based on my usage. So if not planning to do that, I could keep the IPMI port dedicated to it, which is the 210, then use the 219 for Unraid. But is it a big deal to share the port with IPMI? But if the other port is unused, why bother sharing the port? One extra cable plugged into my switch doesn't matter to me. There is a space because I wanted to keep the idea of Link Aggregation open, so any recommendations? Thanks.

Does the built-in UPS service APCUPSD support Eaton UPS models? Eaton 5PX1000RT is what I have, but I haven't built my server with unRAID yet, so I'm just wondering if I actually have to use NUT?

I'm looking to do the same. Trying to pass the stick to a Docker through unRAID seems very tricky and annoying to keep that way. Are you saying you can avoid this headache my installing a Linux VM instead, passing the stick to the VM (which works reliably?), then installing HASS on VM and then Docker can easily see that device because it is already in the system it is in? The HASS install on Linux, could it be via Docker or would it have to be installed without Docker?

I plan on building an unRAID server and I already have custom built pfSense router. I also plan on getting an Eaton 5PX UPS. I want to make sure this will all work right. Now I see my options as connect via serial or USB to either pfSense or unRAID, then with NUT on both, I can get the other device connected. One concern I have about this is what if the NUT server turns itself off before the other device does. How will the other device know when to turn off? A better way I'd prefer to do it is with a network card in the UPS, which it supports. Costs some extra, but it would be fine. I'd then use SNMP I think as the best way to get both pfSense and unRAID connected and won't have to worry about one relying on the other? Can anyone shed some light on this, please? Thanks.