I’ve been wrestling with this issue myself recently.

There can be both performance and other issues with a db whose data files are on nfs. That said I’ve done this for years without any real problem. No db corruption so far - but it’s a possibility and I’ve probably been lucky. I have good backups just in case.

Like you I also don’t want to maintain a “pet” database on my file server. I want to spin up databases in kubernetes pods and not use local pod storage.

I’ve been investigating using iSCSI instead. It’s “block level” rather than “file level” and performs better with a database. Also none of the locking issues mentioned. It’s a recommended way to do remote storage for a db.

The downside is that it’s less resilient to the file server becoming unavailable.

Might be worth investigating for you as well - I’ll be performing some poc tests to figure out how much of a pain it may be (I don’t want to need to fsck a bunch of targets after a file server reboot).

Is this useful? They’re started but doing absolutely nothing. Who cares? You need to plan for max usage not idle.

My forgejo instance running right now is using 1070MiB. That’s way off your 173MB.

You know what’s funny? Codeberg has said nothing about being concerned about liability.

Their terms service change simply mentions that they require certain licenses and that they have concern over the licensing of LLM meeting that standard.

Event their follow up communication says absolutely nothing of liability.

“It’s not…”

“There are probably law firms…”

This is wild unfounded speculation.

P2P torrent users are nothing like a code hosting platform. 🤣

As has been said - their liability for llm code is no different from hosting any other code. They already have the same risk. And that is typically that they must respond to take-down notices which they are already doing.

They are already dealing with all of the problems they would be dealing with with llm code.

It’s just code puritanism wrapped in pseudo legal justification. Own it.

This hasn’t happened. It’s a fantasy.

Maybe you don’t understand copyright?

Yeah - it’s well known that scripts to automate doing bad things did not exist before llms.

People have tried using forges to host explicitly illegal material all the time. Not just “this may be a copyright issue perhaps maybe”.

The copyright complaint is a fig leaf to hide their shame.

They also outright banned cryptocurrency code with no “copyright fig leaf” apologia.

It’s code puritanism plain and simple. “We don’t like these things so we’re banning them.”

People can upload code that violates copyright too. No llm required.

So if that is the concern have a rule about not violating copyright (which they may already have). And there is likely already a process for handling that.

This is the problem I have with the situation: the solution chosen (banning llm code) doesn’t really address the concerns they’ve raised directly. It’s just apologetics to make it sound like it’s reason-based rather than “we don’t like it”.

It’s their platform, they can do what they want, but let’s not pretend it’s not code-puritanism.

At the very least it’s a mistake to say the law is “settled” at all. It’s barely been tested.

Huh. I mostly read people moralizing the use of AI and wanting to slap a scarlet AI on anyone who uses it while derisively using the terms “slop” and “vibe” to poison the well.

Restic will compress as well.

You could just install dovecot and search over imap or pop3 from any email client.

deleted by creator

OMG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

In security engineering, security through obscurity is the practice of concealing the details or mechanisms of a system to enhance its security. This approach relies on the principle of hiding something in plain sight, akin to a magician’s sleight of hand or the use of camouflage. It diverges from traditional security methods, such as physical locks, and is more about obscuring information or characteristics to deter potential threats. Examples of this practice include disguising sensitive information within commonplace items, like a piece of paper in a book, or altering digital footprints, such as spoofing a web browser’s version number. While not a standalone solution, security through obscurity can complement other security measures in certain scenarios.

You don’t know what you’re talking about - please stop. It’s embarrassing. It’s a long-standing industry term not some weird phrase I just made up. Nobody is saying “Linux is obscure”.

Enjoy your “security”. 🙄

Sorry - which part of your comment added anything of value? “can help to minimize the attack surface”? 99% of the time a proxy just passes traffic through. Unless you’re talking about a WAF which is a) a different thing and b) NOT what any home gamers are talking about when they recommend nginx, traefik, etc. to newbs.

Just google the term next time rather than embarrassing yourself.

See what I mean?

As if a proxy blindly passing traffic directly to a backend server “reduces attack surface” in any meaningful way. 🙄

Edit: Guy edits his post with a bunch of stuff and assumes I’ve read it later. I can’t eyeroll enough…

1. You’ve increased your “attack surface” by adding a second application to the stack. Proxies aren’t magic, they are also targets.
2. Sure - you can do those things on a proxy. How many people here are? And why are those things never suggested when people here say “use a reverse proxy”? Because they think the proxy is the security.

The self-hosted crowd thinks reverse proxies protect you from the Internet. Don’t expect too much of them.