• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 10th, 2024

help-circle

  • Yes.

    My home server has dropbear-initramfs installed so that after reboot I can access the LUKS decryption prompt over SSH. The one LUKS partition contains a btrfs filesystem with both rootfs and home as subvolumes. For all the other drives attached to that system, I use ZFS native encryption with a dataset that decrypts with a keyfile from that rootfs and I have backups of an encrypted copy of that keyfile.

    I don’t think there’s a substantial performance impact but I’ve never bothered benchmarking.


  • Something I’ve noticed that is somewhat related but tangential to your problem: The result I’ve always gotten from using compose files is that container names and volume names get assigned names that contain a shared prefix by default. I don’t use docker and instead prefer podman but I would expect both to behave the same on this front. For example, when I have a file at nextcloud/compose.yml that looks like this:

    volumes:
      nextcloud:
      db:
    
    services:
      db:
        image: docker.io/mariadb:10.6
        ...
      app:
        image: docker.io/nextcloud
        ...
    

    I end up with volumes named nextcloud_nextcloud and nextcloud_db, with containers named nextcloud_db and nextcloud_app, as long as neither of those services overrides this behavior by specifying a container_name. I believe this prefix probably comes from the file-level name: if there is one and the parent directory’s name otherwise.

    The reasons I adjust my own compose files to be different from the image maintainer’s recommendation include: to accommodate the differences between podman and docker, avoiding conflicts between the exported listen ports, any host filesystem paths I want to mount in the container, and my own preferences. The only conflict I’ve had with other containers there is the exported port. zigbee2mqtt, nextcloud, and freshrss all suggest using port 8080 so I had to change at least two of them in order to run all three.


  • I never had problems with Debian stable, especially on headless server. But it’s not especially well-suited for brand new desktop hardware; even Ubuntu LTS and RHEL focus more on hardware enablement backports than Debian.

    I’ve had a worse experience with Debian testing breaking my system with updates than Arch. Adding to that the freeze period (2012’s was the worst, lasting 11 months) makes testing feel like the worst of both worlds between rolling and standard release distros.


  • zarenki@lemmy.mltolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldIndeed
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    As someone who used to use Arch a decade ago: I still use pacman for devkitpro at least, and I do miss how fast its parallel downloads get, but the tool I use to manage packages is far from the most important difference between distros to me, even if you assume not needing AUR.


  • The first I tried was Ubuntu 7.04 but I didn’t stick with it and went back to XP. Until I ended up with a hardware setup that wouldn’t work on Windows XP (widescreen monitor + Intel graphics driver with no widescreen mode options) but worked perfectly on Ubuntu 9.10. I never truly went back to Windows since.

    Tried a few other distros in 2011 then switched to Arch for a couple years, Xubuntu for a couple years, Ubuntu GNOME for 7-8 years, and finally switched to Fedora last year.



  • Debian. I was in a similar boat to OP and just a couple weeks ago migrated my almost 8-year-old home server setup from Ubuntu LTS to Debian Stable. Decided to finally move away from Ubuntu because I never cared for snap (had to keep removing it with every upgrade) and gradually gained a few smaller issues with Ubuntu. Seems good to me so far.

    I considered RHEL/Rocky but decided against them largely because I wanted btrfs for my rootfs, which their stock kernel doesn’t have, though I use a few Red Hat developed tools like podman and cockpit. Fedora Server and the like have too fast a release lifecycle for my liking, though I use Fedora for my desktop. That left Debian as the one remaining obvious choice.

    I also briefly considered throwing a Debian VM into TrueNAS Scale, since I also use this system as a ZFS NAS, but setting that up felt like I was fighting against the “appliance” nature of what TrueNAS tries to be.