This is also true of Jellyfin, though. I have apps on my Windows PC, my Android phone, multiple Nvidia Shield boxes on my TVs, plus the web interface if I need it.

I switched over from Plex several years ago, and while it takes a bit more time to configure, compatibility for clients seems just as good for Jellyfin as it is for Plex.

Most importantly, Jellyfin is strictly client/server, no “cloud” bullshit and no remote account is required; I don’t want Plex phoning home with a list of the media on my file server.

I believe you’re correct. I didn’t realize that I had my containers set to privileged. That would explain why I’ve never had issues with mounting shares.

I’m sorry, I think I gave you bad information. I have my containers set to unprivileged=no. I forgot about the “double negative” in how that flag was described.

So apparently my containers are privileged, so I don’t think I’ve ever tried to do what you are doing.

I’m leaving this here for continuity, but don’t follow what I said here. I have my containers set as privileged. I was wrong.

I have a server that runs Proxmox and a server that runs TrueNAS, so a very similar setup to yours. As long as your LXC is tied to a network adapter that has access to your file server (it almost certainly is unless you’re using multiple NICs and/or VLANs), you should be able to mount shares inside your LXC just like you do on any other Linux machine.

Can you ping your fileserver from inside the container? If so, then the issue is with the configuration in the container itself. Privileged or unprivileged shouldn’t matter here. How are you trying to mount the CIFS share?

Edit: I see that you’re mounting the share in Proxmox and mapping it to your container. You don’t need to do this. Just mount it in the container itself.

This is just anecdotal, but I have never once experienced an issue with SFP+ vendor lock. I have mix-and-matched transceivers between Mikrotik, DLink, TPLink, Dell Enterprise, and Xyxel switches as well as both Mellanox and Intel NICs. The only issue i can recall is some auto-negotiatiin issues using 1GB modules in a Mellanox switch. Manually setting the link rate fixed it. I use a combination of 10Gb fiber, 10Gb copper, and 1Gb copper modules as well as DAC depending on the situation.

I know that vendor lock does exist, but it’s not as widespread with modern hardware.

I am virtually never out of town, but if I was, then no, I wouldn’t worry.

If there was a technical problem that left my servers inaccessible, then oh well. It’s the same scenario as if I had shut them off. I’d fix it when I get back. This has never happened, though. I’ve had VMs crash, but I have never had a situation where any of my servers were completely inaccessible.

The only situation I can think of where I’d need to immediately shut down a server would be a drive failure in my ZFS array, but the chances of this happening in conjunction with a loss of connectivity are exceedingly unlikely. If it was a major concern, I’d write a script to power down the server when a drive fails.

You didn’t mention it directly, but if you want to access any of your hosted services remotely, you will almost certainly want some kind of VPN solution. I host a few things over HTTPS, but there’s no way I’m exposing anything critical directly to the internet.

I suppose it depends on your use case, but I would disagree with points 1 and 2. Network connectivity has an effect on your entire network and is absolutely crucial. Pfsense/OPNSense, DNS, etc should always be on server-class hardware. I run these as VM, but I would argue that best practice is to have them on their own bare-metal server-class hardware. File storage is also incredibly important, and even with backups, I don’t want my NAS going down. It also runs on server class-hardware.

The two items you mentioned are the two items I would be least comfortable running on consumer-grade hardware.

My server rack gets shut off in only two cases: I lose power and am too slow in firing up the generator before the UPS shuts the servers down, or I need to do major maintenance (like replacing a PCIe card). So, virtually never for the most part.

Too many important sevices need to stay running, even when I’m not at home.

Holy shit. I’m paying less than 10c per kwh even in the “high usage” tier.

I’m right around the same level, and it actually keeps my server room / workshop at comfortable temperature during the winter. I also have my gaming PC mounted in my server rack; when that’s running, there are times where my AC will still kick in even when it’s 40 degrees outside.

For two servers (one with a lot of spinning rust), two switches, and a few other miscellaneous network appliances. My server rack averages around 600-650W. During periods of high demand (nightly backups, for instance), that can peak at around 750W.

C++ compiler errors still won’t fit on either screen.

It’s actually surprising how much just having a person in the room can alter the temperature and humidity levels. In my master bathroom, I have my bathroom fan set to activate when the dew point reaches a certain level (I’ve found that dew point produces better results than just humidity); the idea is that the bathroom will be ventilated when someone takes a shower and for however long it takes for the humidity to dissipate after they’re done. The funny thing is that every so often, I’ll take an excessively long poop (lets me honest, I’m scrolling on my phone), and the fan will kick on. Just being in the bathroom will alter the dew point enough that it triggers the fan.

I also have a room that contains all my server/networking equipment. It’s climate-controlled, and I’m constantly monitoring temperatures. The times that in the room working, I can see a noticeable spike in the temperature graph, even though the only variable that’s changed is that there’s a person in the room.

So my point is: OP might not have been having fun that night; it’s entirely possible someone just came in and went to bed.

Based on this reply, I get the distinct impression that you know a LOT more about networking than your original ELI5 post lets on, and almost certainly more about the subject than I. I work in tech, but not with networking specifically; most of my knowledge is from way too many years and dollars spent on homelabbing.

One of my internet connections is a DSL connection; by default, they provide a single IPv4 address. My DSL modem has an option to enable IPv6 tunneling through IPv4, but I was never able to get it to work, and customer support was completely clueless. I suspect this isn’t something their network supports and they’re just counting on their users not caring. My other connection is over satellite (Starlink), and as far as I am aware, they’re only providing a single IPv6 connection, not a block of addresses.

To make things easy, I’ve just blocked IPv6 at my firewall, and I use policy-based routing on my PFsense box to send traffic to either connection depending on latency/bandwidth requirements (Streaming goes to satellite, VoIP goes to DSL, etc). I know that IPv6 has improvements beyond just “more addresses,” but at this point I can’t really justify enabling it on my network. It would only be used internally, and I just don’t see any tangible benefit.

Really? Just out of curiosity, what kind of connection are you on? I have two ISPs, one of which provides a single IPv4 address only, and the other provides one IPv4 and one IPv6 address.

This is getting out of ELI5 territory, but the way it works with IPv4 is when something on the internet needs to access your devices, it sends a request to your IP address (your house) along with a port number. Your router (that runs your firewall) decides if it should forward the request to the device inside your network. By default, it usually says “no” unless you tell it otherwise.

With IPv6, you’d still have a router, most likely, but it would be “watching” all of the IP addresses for your devices, not just a single one for your entire home.

This does add a fair bit of complexity, but my guess is that if we ever do start getting blocks of IPv6 addresses as home users, most routers will probably come with default firewall blocking rules pre-configured.

IPv6 has several changes to the specification, but since this is ELI5:

When you were a child, your friends would call your house and a parent would answer the phone. They’d ask to talk to you, and your parents would hand the phone off to you. That might have been because you were too young to have a phone, but IPv4 with NAT works the same way because there are so many “houses” and only enough phone numbers for the houses, not all the people that live in them.

For IPv6 it’s like your friends can call you directly on your cell phone. And they can call your brothers and sisters, your cat, your dog, your TV, your refrigerator, and the backyard squirrels. There are so many phone numbers that everyone can have their own.

Meanwhile, “~x” is drooling on itself over in the corner.

Isn’t it wonderful when your VPN client refuses to connect repeatedly until you realize you need to reboot your PC or restart the VPN service… and then go change your underwear.