@emad-r said in UrBackup vs Veeam:
Veeam tied with Veeam BR is amazing, it just can be costly abit.
One thing that may change things is that Veeam has extended the options for NFR keys for their products. Doesn't change costs for production setups but for labs, this makes the Veeam option even sweeter (for those who didn't already have a NFR key).
https://www.veeam.com/blog/how-to-get-free-veeam-nfr-key.html
@dustinb3403 said in UrBackup vs Veeam:
UrBackup
Are you trying to compare UrBackup to Veeam Endpoint Backup or Veeam B&R?
Would the combination of the client and server with UrBackup be a close approximation to how you can target Veeam B&R using Veeam Endpoint Backup on the client?
@creayt said in Server 2012 R2 Storage Spaces versus Hardware RAID, how do you decide?:
So the RAID controller had a subtle, ambiguous setting available to switch it from PCIe 2 mode to PCIe 3 mode ( though it was labeled something more cryptic ). Simply enabling it made it jump from this:
Thank god for iDRACs.
Which setting was it that you changed from what to what?
@scottalanmiller said in Pi Hole:
It "just worked" on Ubuntu.
That's what I have it installed on and it was a breeze.
@aaronstuder said in Pi Hole:
Anyone using one? Looks sick
I have one of these running at home and love it! It does a much better job of filtering out ads than Sophos ever could. And the ability to whitelist/blacklist so easily is a bonus too. Set it up as a VM, you won't regret it.
So with using NC for backups via the desktop client, the last time I used their client was when MC had just turned v11 and it was buggy, at least for me. Would routinely disconnect, and I couldn't rely on it to sync. Has anyone used the latest version on Windows and if so, has it improved? I'm specifically thinking as a replacement for my parents PC since they live 2hrs away, last thing I want to do is having to get on ScreenConnect to help them out every other day or worse, driving over.
@travisdh1 said in With Crashplan Free/Home going away...:
The malware protection thing is what made me think of NextCloud first with it's auto saving of previous versions.
Right, hadn't thought of that. I knew it was there but never really needed to use it yet.
@scottalanmiller said in With Crashplan Free/Home going away...:
@nashbrydges said in With Crashplan Free/Home going away...:
The only problem with using Nextcloud is that it doesn't have the scale that CrashPlan had. If my files get deleted for some reason, and my Nextcloud server gets hosed, all my files are gone forever.
That's assuming you take no backups, which seems like a weird thing to do.
Agreed, that would be kinda stupid and pointless.
CrashPlan was always my backup-of-last-resort. I have a Synology located offsite that I send backups to as a secondary backup after my local Veeam host. Now I think I may just do another Synology at another location and call cloud backups quits.
@travisdh1 said in With Crashplan Free/Home going away...:
So I'm thinking up ideas to replace Crashplan as a backup method for my and family computers here.
First thought was, just use NextCloud and the sync client to get files up on a server.
The other thing I'm considering is Unison: Unison.
Would Veem free work?
Any other recommendations?
Planning to backup the entire virtual environment to Backblaze B2.
The only problem with using Nextcloud is that it doesn't have the scale that CrashPlan had. If my files get deleted for some reason, and my Nextcloud server gets hosed, all my files are gone forever. That was an infinitesimally small risk with CrashPlan.
I wonder how well Unison would work for large volumes. It sounds like it would synchronize the files across the hosts but there must be a point where fragmentation becomes an issue, especially if a high number of files change and must be synchronized. And this still doesn't seem to address the malware encryption risk as it would simply sync the encrypted files across the volumes.
I had the family plan and also had my parents on it. I looked at Backblaze before but because I was already on CrashPlan, I didn't bother making the move. I'll reevaluate options now but likely it will be Backblaze.
According to an email I just received, CrashPlan will no longer be offering the Home backup plans anymore and will shift focus to business and enterprise customers.
http://blog.code42.com/data-protection-needs-diverge/
Guess it's time to look for other options.
@aaronstuder I was going to do this for my parents but then decided to go the Grandstream HT701 direct to voip.ms. Parents have a flaky internet connection so they're forever rebooting the damn ISP router. It's such a pain in the ass I'm almost regretting it. Make sure their internet connection can support voip otherwise you'll kick yourself.
@minion-queen said in Ubiquiti Frontrow:
kinda cool and a little creepy.
A little creepy? Hell that's all kinds of hugely creepy!
Must. Not. Let. The. Wife. See. This.
Ever!
@scottalanmiller said in UK To Fine Some Service Agencies if Found with Inadequate Security:
@stuartjordan said in UK To Fine Some Service Agencies if Found with Inadequate Security:
100% agree with your comment Nash...That Amber Rudd women spoke about how facebook, whatsapp and many others should let government agencies have backdoor access. I say they should go F** themselves! - Non technical people in high power should not be able to stipulate comments like that...
Non-technical people shouldn't be in power. Non-technical is really just a general code phrase for "not smart."
Ouch! lol
This is from the same government that wants to insert backdoors into all encrypted communications? Gotta love the duplicity of that kind of bull$hit! Let me poke holes in your security but if you get breached, I'll punish you. Lol
@emad-r said in How to setup Nginx TLS certificate based Authentication (VPN alternative):
Unfortunately , while I did learn alot new stuff and ways. The original reason for learning this failed me.
What I did I install Fedora LXDE spin
Then installed ontop of that VNC on port 5901 made it run on local host
Then using No VNC and Websockify (is a WebSocket to TCP proxy/bridge. This allows a browser to connect to any application/server/service. Implementations in Python, C, Node.js and Ruby.) Which creates a neat HTML 5 interface for VNC service, I configured this to listen to 127.0.0.1:5901 and output to port 7777
so http://192.168.1.x:7777
allows me to connect to my machine.stay with me.
Using this method I tried to proxy http://192.168.1.x:7777 and use nginx extra security
It worked and installed on Fedora, and I can reach the noVNC connection dialog only after inserting the p12 key, however this lame login page:
with the host and port option, does not allow me to finish the connection, I tried many options but I am so confused with all the proxying that I rather drop it, I feel like If I do more effort I might open proxy to another dimension.
I prefer using Guacamole for all my remote access needs but I think I'll definitely implement something like this to restrict access to my own staff.
It's official, I'm NEVER getting through my to-do list. Must stop coming here. Lol
@jaredbusch said in How to setup Nginx TLS certificate based Authentication (VPN alternative):
@nashbrydges said in How to setup Nginx TLS certificate based Authentication (VPN alternative):
@Emad-R Am I understanding this correctly? Is this to prevent access to a site to anyone who doesn't have the cert installed in their browser? If so, do you think this can be restricted in scope to only a single page or set of pages? For example, a public site with some admin functions via a login page, could this be used to continue to allow public access to the public pages but used to restrict access to the login and admin pages to only those with the cert? I suppose I've have to use Nginx and this config only for those restricted pages and a different config for the public space (if that's even possible).
Simply use a different URL for the restricted pages versus open pages.
secure.domain.com vs www.domain.comOnly have the client certs in the nginx config for the secure.domain.com server block.
Both blocks can still be SSL.
Nice! Didn't think of using a sub-domain. Definitely going to have to give this a try.
@Emad-R Am I understanding this correctly? Is this to prevent access to a site to anyone who doesn't have the cert installed in their browser? If so, do you think this can be restricted in scope to only a single page or set of pages? For example, a public site with some admin functions via a login page, could this be used to continue to allow public access to the public pages but used to restrict access to the login and admin pages to only those with the cert? I suppose I've have to use Nginx and this config only for those restricted pages and a different config for the public space (if that's even possible).
