Beiträge von getName()

Use uuid instead of alphbetical drive names. Your fstab is wrong at the moment as you miss the install stick which got sorted in front of your sysdrive. You can also chroot from a live medium and change etc/fstab to use sdb instead of sdc, but uuid would be way better and more secure to future changes.

fdsik - l <deviceName> prints partition tables. If you have an uefi installation use gdsik instead.

Either you just run both, mariadb and phpAdmin and connect via exposed ports or, if you only want phpAdmin to connect to mariadb and nothing else, you create a docker net and add both to it. Docker Compose has some nicely structured yaml files with the flag links. This does the very same, creating a docker net and add all linked containers in it.

Maybe a power issue? The drive starts and your network turns of, sounds like insufficient amount of energy.

Its fine. Brainfuck is a programming language based on the symbols <>[]+-., only and apparently the engine recognizes posts with a lot of those as brainfuck.

This is an intersting one. I guess its fuse that has problems with mergefs. Maybe this will be a starting point for some research, if you plan on fixing this.

Ok, at this price point it is perfectly fine.

Just forgot to add, that it is always possible to install a desktop inside docker to not harm omv. One just needs to give the gpu device exclusivly to the containers, otherwhise there wont be any interference.

Right, but you can install a windowmanager without all de stuff, this way it should be possible to have both, although I agree that there should not be a usecase to obvious in need of that.

I think it should not be a problem if you just install a simple windowmanager amd xorg, not the whole desktop environment stuff like gvfs stuff and such.
Installing xserver and run startx to start fluxbox or awesome and have software installed inside should not infere with user management. This of course is different if you go with the preinstalled desktops like gnome-desktop from repo.

With caching disabled, the drive has enough power in its capacators to finish the writes given to the controller and they should be synchronous enough in that matter, if you use the same type of disks. Talking about ssds here of course.
It is of course quite as simple as this: every storage can blunder. Thats what we have different depths of backup for. Its just a matter of propabilities and it is way way lower with raid 1 than 4,5,6 to get write holes.

The reason for write holes is, that data are getting written at different times. This will not happen on raid1. The question remains, what has to be done when the data are different between the two drives, caused by some disk error. This highly depends on the implementation. In general, a simple hw controller or mdadm cannot decide which one is correct and which one not. The easiest defence against this is a quorum, so if you use 3 disks, 2 should be the same. This can be handled by simple raid controllers.
There is also the possibility of checksums, as they are implemented in zfs or ceph. Ceph for example askes for quorum AND correct check sum as default.
A common way to go, if you only got two drives, is to actually check both disks by hand and decide which one is the good one, by reither smart values or chacking files or fs integrity. But there will not be a scrub to death scenario happening as they may happen in raid 456.
Of course the only thing that may happen is a total disk fail and wrong data which were undetected before. To avaid that you must do diskverifications regulary.

Write holes only appear on striped raids, not raid1.

Any reason to go for the expensive z390 chip?

In terms of the ssd journal: be aware a filesystem is useless junk of data without an existing journal. If you need a extrenal journal, make sure it is running on a raid.
I just recently had a datacenter loosing the beegfs storage because of a broken journal, that was running in a 20 drive ssd raid5 configuration.

Actually a lot of Mainboards do strange stuff with virtual pcie interfaces for onboard i/o. This is of course very unfortunate and at least only common with consumer hardware. Maybe you could fix it differently, others may correct me if I am wrong, as I am way more familiar with GNU/Linux in general as I am with OMV.
Edit /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and add a symlink from enp2s0 to enp3s0. This way you can access the device using both names. Go to the GUI and change all network settings from enp2s0 to enp3s0, remove the symlink. The question remaining is, how the gui handles the symlink, but my guess is, that it will just recognize a new device.

Wow, I would do a lot just to get a symetric gbit internetconnection!
Yor system is bottlenecked by the sd. Try to first get another system drive and check if the nas is already fast enough.
If not, dont aim for i7 architecture. You dont do much computing and its waisted money. Better invest in ecc ram, more effizient power supply or a nice meal with somebody you care for.

rmi means remove image. This is the same you did on the gui now. In general are things to be replaced in <> and optional ones in [] or {} if they are pepeadable. It is called Extended Backus Naur Form.
The rm flag removes a container (not the image) when it stops.

Actually the name does not matter, the id has to be the same.
The common way to go is to decide for a user (might be a new one named emby) on the host and tell the docker image to use this user. Modify the container, not the host is a good rule of thumb.

First of all, do not virtualize omv on a windows machine of availability is of any concern!
I honestly think that you should rather build two machines at 16gb ram, one as desktop and one as server. 100mb/s is really not much. Even at 2gb/s with active compression and 5 clients writing my cpu is barely used.
For Office only you can use a nice 2400G build at around 500€.
I used to rent one of those virtualized servers, 4 cores/8threads of a 2680v3 with 12gb of ram. I could easily run netcloud with two dozent users and onlyoffice implementation, sharelate and phabricator at the same time. I think ou are totally overpowering your system. The 9900k is a cpu of not great value. It is only a good choice if you really need to squeeze out the last bit of single thread performance, otherwise other cpus just have better value for money.
What budget would be left for the server?
What is the goal for the ssds? I wonder because 100mb/s is easily done by spinning disks today.
Maybe lets talk about budget first and what the second virtual machine should do.
Just a few thoughts:
- two machines, each dimensioned smaller
- maybe choose an ecc platform for the nas
- ssds maybe not necessary
- dont use 2*10tb disks, rather 4*4tb or something like that
- dont use a 9900k, if you want to be in this ballpark, better look at ryzen 2700x, although I would rather go with a refurbished 2680 v2 or something similar