Another user posted the blog where they discuss their speedup techniques: https://tailscale.com/blog/more-throughput/

It’s likely that the kernel version can use similar techniques to surpass the performance of the userspace version that tailscale uses, but no one has put in the work to to make the kernel implementation as sophisticated as the userspace one.

I had a look through the comments on this HN thread the other day and came away more intrigued by https://github.com/openobserve/openobserve than hyperdx. Hyperdx is built on top of clickhouse whereas open observe has it’s own storage engines based on parquet files that can be accessed from local disk, S3, or a few other protocols.

I haven’t tried either option yet… I’m, currently using netdata for metrics and don’t do anything special for logs or tracing, but at tiny self-hosting scale I often find software with it’s own storage engines (often sqlite) to be extra hassle-free. I’m curious to kick the tires on openobserve for that reason.

For the latest version of lemmy, hot sort works in the new fashion. There is a pull request with further implementation details linked in the GitHub issue.

Ah, fair enough. My response doesn’t apply then.

You misunderstand what the Hot rank is doing. It’s not balancing newness vs hotness, it’s scaling hotness according to community size. This might feel like newness if you’re focused on vote counts as a proxy for post age, but it’s a different approach. See https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3622 for details.

There’s a couple ways to think about this:

1. There are a handful of Lemmy communities that are just WAY more active than everything else. The main feeds are kind of lame if you have to scroll 300 posts it to find anything other than a shit post from the same 3 communities. Scaled Hot rank shows a greater variety of communities by making it easier small communities to get ranked hotly.
2. Or you can consider Hotness to be a rough measure of what percentage of people who have seen the post interacted with it. A post with 500 upvotes in a community with 10,000 active users is kind of popular, but only 5% of the people likely to have scrolled passed it cared about it. A post with 50 upvotes in a community with 200 active members is much MORE popular relatively even though the absolute numbers are smaller.

At any rate, this preference toward smaller communities in hot is a recent change and deliberate. While they might further tweak the scaling factors, I wouldn’t expect it to be drastically different. It sounds to me like what you want is Top, Active, or Most Comments. All these are unscaled according to community size and will get you top posts by their absolute metric rather than posts that are doing well relative to their community size.

This is a very strong explanation of what’s going on. And as a follow-up, I believe that ZeroTier present a single Ethernet broadcast domain, and so WoL tricks are more likely to work naturally there than with Wireguard. I haven’t used ZeroTier, and I do use Wireguard via Tailscale/Headscale. I’ve never missed the Ethernet features of ZeroTier and they CAN result in a very chatty wan if you’re not careful. But I think ZT would make this straightforward.

Though as other people note… the simplest/least-disruptive change is probably to expose some scripty thing on the rpi that can be triggered via be triggered over a routed protocol and then have the rpi emit the Ethernet broadcast packets from the physical network.

No no, sorry. I mean can I still have all my network traffic go through some VPN service (mine or a providers) while Tailscale is activated?

Tailscale just partnered with Mullvad so this works out of the box for that setup: https://tailscale.com/blog/mullvad-integration/

For others, it’s a “yes on paper” situation. It will probably often not work out of the box, but it seems likely to be possible as an advanced configuration. At the end of the line of possibilities, it would definitely be possible to set up a couple of docker containers as one-armed routers, one with your VPN and one with Tailscale as an exit node. Then they can each have their own networking stack and you can set up your own routes and DNS delegating only the necessary bits to each one. That’s a pretty advanced setup and you may not have the knowhow for it, but it demonstrates what’s possible.

To a first approximation, Tailscale/Headscale don’t route and traffic.

Ah, well damn. Is there a way to achieve this while using Tailscale as well, or is that even recommended?

Is there a way to achieve what? Force tailscale to route all traffic through the DERP servers? I don’t know, and I don’t know why you’d want to. When my laptop is at home on the same network as my file-server, I certainly don’t want tailscale sending filserver traffic out to my Headscale server on the Internet just to download it back to my laptop on the same network it came from. I want NAT traversal to allow my laptop and file-server to negotiate the most efficient network path that works for them… whether that’s within my home lab when I’m there, across the internet when I’m traveling, or routing through the DERP server when no other option works.

OpenVPN or vanilla Wireguard are commonly setup with simple hub-and-spoke routing topologies that send all VPN traffic through “the VPN server”, but this is generally slower path than a direct connection. It might be imperceptibly slower over the Internet, but it will be MUCH slower than the local network unless you do some split-dns shenanigans to special-case the local-network scenario. With Tailscale, it all more or less works the same wherever you are which is a big benefit. Of course excepting if you have a true multigigabit network at home and the encryption overhead slows you down… Wireguard is pretty fast though and not a problematic throughout limiter for the vast majority of cases.

Have a read through https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works/

You, and many commenters are pretty confused about out tailscale/Headscale work.

1. To a first approximation, Tailscale/Headscale don’t route and traffic. They perform NAT traversal and data flows directly between nodes on the tailnet, without traversing Headscale/Tailscale directly.
2. If NAT traversal fails badly enough, it’s POSSIBLE that bulk traffic can flow through the headscale/tailscale DERP nodes… but that’s an unusual scenario.
3. You probably can’t run Headscale from your home network and have it perform the NAT traversal functions correctly. Of course, I can’t know that for sure because I don’t know anything about your ISP… but home ISPs preventing Headscale from doing it’s NAT traversal job are the norm… one would be pleasantly surprised to find that a home network can do that properly.
4. Are younreally expecting 10gb/s speeds over your encrypted links? I don’t want to say it’s impossible, people do it… but you’d generally only expect to see this on fairly burly servers that are properly configured. Tailscale just in April bragged about hitting 10gb speeds with recent optimizations: https://tailscale.com/blog/more-throughput/ and on home hardware with novice configd I’d generally expect to see roughly more like single gigabit.

I don’t know what’s up on your case, but I would not jump to the conclusion that it’s impossible to use tailscale with any other VPN in any circumstance.

Rather, tailscale and Mullvad will now work easily and out of the box. For other VPNs, you may need to do understand the topology and routing of virtual devices and have the technical ability and system permissions to make deep networking changes.

So I’d expect one can probably find a way for most things to coexist on a Linux server. On a non-rootrr android phone? I’m less confident.

Have you emailed [email protected] to try to get reinstated? This all seems like a pretty reasonable explanation if it isn’t repeated behavior.

So I have a question, what can I do to prevent that from happening? Apart from hosting everything on my own hardware of course, for now I prefer to use VPS for different reasons.

Others have mentioned that client-caching can act as a read-only stopgap while you restore Vaultwarden.

But otherwise the solution is backup/restore. If you run Vaultwarden in docker or podman container using volumes to hold state… then you know that as long as you can restart Vaultwarden without losing data that you also know exactly what data needs to be backed up and what needs to be done to restore it. Set up a nightly cron job somewhere (your laptop is fine enough if you don’t have somewhere better) to shut down Vaultwarden, rsync it’s volume dirs, and start it up again. If you VPS explodes, copy these directories to a new VPS at the same DNS name and restart Vaultwarden using the same podman or docker-compose setup.

All that said, keeypass+filesync is a great solution as well. The reason I moved to Vaultwarden was so I could share passwords with others in a controlled way. For single-user, I prefer how keypass folders work and keepass generally has better organization features… I’d still be using it for only myself.

My take echoes this. If one puts any stock in streamer recommendations, Baalorlord who has at various times held spire world record winstreaks, has recently cited Monster Train as his current favorite spirelike (other than spire itself), and also cited Griftlands as a playthrough a highlight.

Baalor probably doesn’t have an opinion on Inscryption as he tends to avoid things with even a slight horror theme. I enjoyed what I played of Inscryption a lot, but very little about playing it evoked the vibe of playing spire. Monster Train is quite adjacent though, the mechanics are different enough to feel fresh but it slots into the same gameplay mood for me whereas Inscryption is just a different (and still very good) thing.

Neither has the tight balance of Spire or feels quite as deep strategically to me (though in all honesty I’m probably not a strong enough player to be trusted in this regard), but both are fun.

That’s an interesting report but it’s possible to “work” at different latencies. And unless you have specialized audio capture/playback hardware and have done some tuning and testing to determine the lowest stable latency that your system is capable of achieving… “works” for you is likely to mean something very different than it does to someone who does a lot of music production.

It remains an interesting question to some users whether Wayland changes the minimum stable latency relative to X and if so whether it does so for better or worse.

I’d consider asking in a Linux audio or music production community (I’m not aware of any on Lemmy that are big enough to have a likely answer though). If music production is a primary use case and audio latency matters to you, almost no general users are going to be able to comment on the difference between X and Wayland from a latency perspective. There may not be a difference, but there might and you won’t be likely to learn about it outside of an audio-focused discussion.

Yeah, snapshots sent to a separate and often remote pool is an extremely common backup strategy for folks who have long-term settled on ZFS. There’s very nice tooling for this that presents a more traditional schedule/retention based interface to save you scripting snapshots and sends directly.

• Sanoid is an old standby in that space.
• Zrepl is getting a lot of traction lately and seems to be an up-and-coming option.
• I use pyznap, but I don’t recommend it to others as as the maintainer is on a multi-year hiatus which makes it undermaintained. It works great, but isn’t getting active development which makes it a poor bet in a crowded space with many great options. I plan to eval Zrepl when I get around to it.

I don’t know if what you’re suggesting is possible, which as I read it is to split your “live” raid-1 in half and use one drive to rebuild the “live” pool and the other drive to rebuild the “backups” pool. It might be, but I can’t think of any advantage to that approach and it’s not something I would have thought to attempt.

I’d do one of:

• Ship the data over the network using ZFS send or something like syncoid/sanoid (which use ZFS send under the hood). It might be slow, but is that an issue? Waiting a week for the initial sync might be fine.
• But syncing by sneakernet is a good strategy too, and can be faster if your backup site is close or your connectivity is slow. In this case, I’d build the backup pool at the live site… ideally in an external drive bay… but one could plug it in internally as well. Then sync them with a local ZFS send, export the backup pool, detach and transport the backup pool to the backup site, them reattach the backup pool at the backup site and import it. Et Voila, the backup pool is running at the remote site fully populated with data and subsequent ZFS sends will be incremental.

Splitting and rebuilding your live pool might be possible, but I can imagine a lot of that might go wrong and I can’t see any reason to do it that way over export/import.

It may seem kinda stupid to consider that an accomplishment, but I feel quite genuinely proud of myself for actually succeeding at this instead of just throwing in the towel…

Way to go. I’ve been at this a decent while and do some pretty esoteric stuff at work and at home… but this loop of feeling stupid, doing the work, and feeling good about a success has been a constant throughout. I spent a week struggling to port some advanced container setups to podman a month or so ago, same feeling of pride when I got them humming.

It’s not stupid to be proud of an accomplishment even if it’s a fundamental one that’s early in a bigger learning curve. Soak it in, then on to the next high. Good luck.

I don’t know for sure in this case, but it’s often that some license was time-limited. You might license the music for x-years, or get a license to distribute some third-party software library with your game. With the license time-period runs out the publisher either has to pay to renew the license or stop selling the game. In either case, people who bought get to keep what they have.

You connect to Headscale using the tailscale clients, and configuration is exactly the same irrespective of which control server you use… with the exception of having to configure the custom server url with Headscale (which requires navigating some hoops and poor docs for mobile/windows clients).

But to my knowledge there are no client-side configs related to NAT traversal (which is kind of the goal… to work seamlessly everywhere). The configs themselves on the headscale server aren’t so bad either, but the networking concepts involved are extremely advanced, so debugging if anything goes sideways or validating that your server-side NAT traversal setup is working as expected can be a deep dive. With Tailscale, you know any problems are client-side and can focus your attention accordingly… which simplifies initial debugging quite a lot.