- 1 Post
- 5 Comments
3·27 days agoI recently had to increase my proxmox storage as well from an old 256 to 1TB. What I did was make a copy of /etc via PVE Host Backup and saved that on my NAS/external storage. Almost everything is in /etc/pve. Then I created backups of all the VMs and stored those on the same external storage. I then installed proxmox as normal and compared configs between backup and new configs then restored VMs from backup. The reason I did it this way is because 1) I had installed proxmox a while ago and new config > old config for stability after adding some necessary PVE scripts (e.g. intel chip, and 2) I’ve had weird issues before cloning drives and a fresh install was easier than risking some weird edge case troubleshooting. It also let me keep the old SSD as a backup in case something went wrong.
Edit: Also recommend going with zfs mirrored on the new install during the setup: target disks options and zfs mirrored. ZFS offers some benefits vs the default lvm.
Absolutely no problem with it being virtualized as long as you have a pci storage controller and pass that through to trueNAS. HBA cards can be found that do this without raid or anything so you can use zfs in trueNAS.
0·5 months agoSnapshot of comments in those posts. Mostly just governance drama.
From the new fork https://web.archive.org/web/20260107095954/https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1q1we4e/the_revanced_situation_is_crazy_a_new_project/
From ReVanced side
A major contributor submitted a big core change (fingerprint/patcher internals). Maintainers pushed back hard on design and maintainability. The contributor felt stonewalled, got personal, and eventually left. After leaving, they forked the project, copied large chunks of code, squashed commits, stripped contributor history, and allegedly violated GPLv3 rules by changing licensing and attribution. That’s the heart of the dispute.
From there, both sides started accusing each other of bad faith, harassment, threats, ego, gatekeeping, you name it. A small group rallied around the fork and started saying “ReVanced is dead” which… yeah, that’s the part that caused panic. – AI generated summary of a 40~ pg document that someone from ReVance uploaded
Basically the contributor proposed a major redesign to the patcher’s fingerprint system that worked short term but papered over deeper limitations. The maintainers saw it as a band-aid approach that would lock in technical debt and cause long term maintenance problems, so after extensive review they rejected it and pushed for a more fundamental solution instead. The contributor took that personally, issued merge-or-else ultimatums, then left. After leaving, they copied large parts of the code into a new repo, rewrote history to remove attribution, changed licensing in ways that likely violate GPLv3, and went public claiming ReVanced was “hostile” or “dead”. … For context, the fingerprint system is how ReVanced finds the right parts of YouTube’s code to modify even as YouTube updates and shuffles things around. Inefficient or overly abstract changes increase the chance of things breaking later. The contributor wanted a quick duct-tape style fix, the maintainers wanted a proper redesign, and it all spiraled from there.
wireguard is self hosted and you do have to “expose” one UDP port. From the outside it’s difficult to detect that this “opening” exists because wireguard just listens and ignores everything unless you send the encrypted credentials. Compared to hosting a webpage or jellyfin directly this is much more secure. As long as you keep wireguard relatively up to date you don’t really have to worry much about it.
I personally use wg-easy. It’s designed to be deployed into docker (using docker compose is by far the easiest).
Then you can either use your IP address, or ideally a dynamic DNS provider so you’d connect to myexample.com:51820. Duckdns is free, otherwise options are available like cloudflare. If you can get jellyfin working, this should be relatively straightforward.