Posts by DonkeeeyKong

    Can you please give a bit more detailed describtion. I'm planning a 4 x 16TB raid 6. I know that a raid is not a backup but i wil not buy another two hdds to have an external backup. What you wrote is new to me so i'm very curious.

    i found mergerfs - Perfect Media Server

    so i merge 2x16 and 2x16 into two groups and have one being the synconized backup? so no need to have a raid?

    If you think, you don't need a RAID when you have a backup, you've never needed a RAID in the first place. You needed a backup.


    If your data is remotely important to you, you should by all means make regular (external) backups.

    Indeed that looks strange, but OMV is configured more or less like the original unattended-upgrades default config, except that OMV does not install upgrades from defaut version repo ("origin=Debian,codename=${distro_codename},label=Debian";). So, in this case unattended-upgrades has a faulty default configuration or Debian is doing something wong and undocumented. If someone can point to an official Debian documentation which points out how security repos in unattended-upgrades have to be configured correctly, i' happy to adapt and fix that in OMV. Please open a GitHub feature request for that.


    References:

    - https://github.com/mvo5/unatte…ended-upgrades.Debian#L31

    - https://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/…ty-updates-automatically/

    After doing some reading I am probably wrong:


    stable-security is the "suite" while bookworm-security is the "codename". According to this page "In Debian repositories the indices are stored in a directory named after Suite or Codename (actually one is symlinked to the other)." So stable-security is probably linking to bookworm-security or the other way around. The unattended-upgrades default configuration you linked also shows the option to either use codename based matching or archive/suite based matching.


    Unless something very funny and undocumented has been happening on the Debian servers I don't believe this is the cause of the problem. Sorry for interfering.


    Edit:

    Could you please post the APT package list configuration that is configuring stable-security? Only <RELEASE_NAME>-security is configured by OMV. What Debian derivate are you using? Is it for a ARM device?


    The only page i found anything about stable-security is a German Debian Wiki, but I don't think you can declare this as official or it s outdated.

    Yeah. That page says more or less the same . If you configure stable and stable-security as your sources, you automatically get upgraded once a new stable version is released (and probably the symlinks are changed).


    If you use the codename you stay with whatever release you are using (and can even follow it from testing to oldstable).


    P.S.: I am not OP. I hope I didn't confuse anybody. :)

    Could it have something to do with the label? It says:

    Code
    Allowed origins are: origin=Debian,codename=bookworm,label=Debian-Security, origin=Debian,codename=bookworm-security,label=Debian-Security

    The packages in question have the label Debian stable-security somehow. Not bookworm-security.

    Code
    Packages with upgradable origin but kept back: Debian stable-security:

    The config file on my system (/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/95openmediavault-unattended-upgrades) says:

    Code
    Unattended-Upgrade::Origins-Pattern {
    "origin=Debian,codename=${distro_codename},label=Debian-Security";
    "origin=Debian,codename=${distro_codename}-security,label=Debian-Security";
    };

    and the allowed origins are the same in the messages from unattended-upgrades:

    Code
    origin=Debian,codename=bookworm,label=Debian, origin=Debian,codename=bookworm,label=Debian-Security, origin=Debian,codename=bookworm-security,label=Debian-Security, origin=Debian,codename=bookworm,label=Debian-Security, origin=Debian,codename=bookworm-security,label=Debian-Security


    Nowhere does it say stable-security. I am no expert in apt or in unattended-upgrades. But this called my attention. Could this have anything to do with the recent update to 7.3.1? ("Fixed a bug in unattended-upgrades that causes all new packages to be installed instead of just security updates.")

    Nextcloud causes several 4xx and 3xx status codes in the NPM logs. I got banned all the time when using this combination. I managed to work around this after changing the rules a bit (check this thread and specifically this post) but, after still getting banned from time to time, I ultimately just switched to only have fail2ban monitor the Nextcloud logs with the settings recommended by Nextcloud. For now Nextcloud is the only exposed service in my setup, so this works well for me.


    This might have changed with the newest Nextcloud release though. I haven't checked the NPM logs for that.

    The LUKS encrypt plugin does nothing for me.
    If you try to encrypt a driver it seems to work except that it doesn't encrypt anything. Do you know other solutions for a good and strong AES encryption?

    LUKS is the standard for drive encryption in Linux and it works very well. Please be more precise. How are you trying to encrypt a drive, what's the error and what makes you think it doesn't work?

    I saw this on my dev system but figured it was just something I caused. You will have to remove the large empty space in the services -> rsync section of the database. make a backup copy of /etc/openmediavault/config.xml and then remove the space.

    Thank you! The empty line after <modules> I suppose?


    Code
    <rsync>
          <server>
            <enable>0</enable>
            <port>873</port>
            <extraoptions />
            <modules>
    
            </modules>
          </server>

    Hello everybody.


    I am trying to switch from my physical interface to a br0 network bridge. What I did was what's described here. The only difference was that I tried to copy the IPv6 settings as well. When I tried to apply the changes I got the following error. I also tried to apply the changes after changing the IPv6 method to DHCP and got the same error (see error.txt for the full error):

    Here are my current network settings:


    Maybe this is important as well: I have a second network interface that's currently attached directly to a VM running an Ubuntu server with Adguard Home and unbound which I use as DNS server. This interface is not configured in OMV in any way.


    Thanks for any help with this issue!

    By the way, I have a suggestion for the German localization of the individual menu entries of the compose plugin.

    The openmediavault-compose translation project on Transifex
    Join openmediavault-compose project in Transifex, and contribute to the world's largest localization community
    explore.transifex.com


    I believe help is always welcome.


    A few comments though: