Right, I did hear about that lawsuit way back when, I just didn’t know of these types of consequences. Very appreciated, especially the sources.

Is this for hardware RAID controllers, or have you experience software RAID like LVM or ZFS exhibiting the same drop out behavior? I personally haven’t but it be nice to look out for future drives.

Does Backblaze work for what you are doing? It been a bit since I’ve price compared them, but I think it was something around 5$ a month per TB?

I guess burden was probably the wrong term. I appreciate your work, and I just get over protective of really cool freely available services from being overwhelmed. That’s an excellent suggestion.

I’m using Automatic1111’s SD web UI, so their API would be the most relevant to me, but there are others out there if you prefer to use something else an an optional backend.

Can I use my locally hosted SD API rather than burden the Horde with something like this?

There’s also Bitmagnet, it you’d like a local tracker for the Arr stack.

If you run it in podman, podman can export into a kubernete file, but its been a long time since I’ve tried it though. podman kube generate $CONTAINERNAME

is podman-compose really dead? Their github page looks active at a glance. The tooling is so similar, I use podman for local testing, and deploy to docker, but I’ve also done the reverse. As long as your not using really exotic parameters its really just a drop in replacement, I’ve even used GPU passthrough for AI project no problem in both docker and podman. At the end of the day, they’re just slightly different frontends for the same backend.

As far as docker support, its often as simple as just providing a Dockerfile, which is basically the same thing as your build scripts. These days I’ve often used the Dockerfile INSTEAD of the readme to find help compiling some projects.

Totally reasonable, something like LVM can at least get you to a raid1 setup, pretty easily.

Raid0 (combining both drives’ capacities) is not really tiered storage. You would want Raid1 (each drive is a copy of the other drive ), but doing this isn’t a backup. How will you be monitoring the drives so that you know if one of them actually fails?

I don’t think the RPi has a new enough kernel, but with bcachefs you can do tiered storage. By combining the storage of the ssd + hardrives, into a single block device, then make the ssd the read/write cache, and give the whole pool replicas=2, so that that if one drive dies you still have the failover of the other drive. Do be aware this setup is still not a backup however.

It does make sense. Thank you. I appreciate the link!

However, my cloud usage is purely as a proxy/load balancer, as none of my cloud providers hold any actual data. They’re just routing traffic, and all data/processing is on premises. What I’m interested in, is how to setup something like what you describe, but on premises also. From a design stand point, if I wanted to protect myself from a ransomware attack, obviously my cloud backups would be lost because they’re a mounted filesystem during a backup eventually. So I don’t know how to wrap my head around handling this, just storage design wise as specific tools I can figure out. How does one create a recovery point, and keep it safe from something like this? Just image the entire file system from a live booted offline environment? Feels like a chicken-egg problem to me.

I’ve thought about how I could handle disaster recovery for my homelab environment, but I haven’t come to any good solutions. For example, if my main concern was being hit by crypto. I can’t just recover from a regular backup, since I’m not sure how I can make a backup without that backup just being encrypted along side everything else. Since I mainly just backup everything to my file server, which is then synced to the cloud. In that setup, my cloud backups would be lost as well.

Would you have some starting points on how others handle disaster recovery? I’d like to avoid manually making an offline backup, because inevitably I’d forget to do it, which would make it useless anyway.

I believe they changed some of their licensing from the fallout of their IPO. Just worth noting for the selfhosting crowd. I know terraform is being forked entirely, but I’m unfamiliar with the specifics beyond that.

I don’t know if this is what you are looking for but I used :z with podman mounting and it Just Works*.

podman run -d -v /dir:/var/lib/dir:z image

From the documentation :z or :Z relabels volumes for host and container usage depending.

This method is perfect for fully controlling your traffic. As another option, you can run a wireguard VPN on the vps and route traffic back through the VPN. In my experience wireguard has better performance than an ssh tunnel and allows for actual network topology with subnets rather than just raw port forwarding.

Works the other way too, can do a LVM with RAID underneath. I currently use LVM raid 5 with XFS underneath. Though all the news around bcachefs has got me pretty excited to go that route and cut out the LVM middleware.

Is a soft fork, its purpose is to specifically stay in step with the upstream and working on new features the upstream isn’t ready/doesn’t want. As far as I know, they’re the devs working on federation between selfhosted/any other instances.

Exactly. At the end if the day, its whatever the community supports. That will become the defacto standard, and there will always be niche competition.

This is extremely cool, thank you for your work! Would you consider supporting a container deployment alongside existing container hosted Lemmy instances? No worries if that breaks to far from your workflow.