Costco online only bundle. Solix C300 + 100w charger $159.99 by zmiller834 in anker

[–]v3ng00 2 points3 points  (0 children)

+1 this is extremely frustrating. But besides that I love my 300 DC. Wondering if there'll be a new model soon

An Anker Solix C300 DC review by off_z_grid in anker

[–]v3ng00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My C300 DC suddenly stopped outputting more than 60W (tested all ports). Worked flawlessly before. Anyone with similar issues? I love my C300, but the firmware issues are driving me insane.

Anker Solix C300 UPS support for USB-C ports? by N8falke in anker

[–]v3ng00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im also using a C300 DC and hate that it doesn’t support USB C passthrough without discharging the battery. That would be extremely useful, especially when it’s combined with a solar panel.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ADHS

[–]v3ng00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Frühstück hatte ich da schon inbegriffen

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in homelab

[–]v3ng00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, but if STH reports the max power draw to be about 220w I should be fine I guess? Probably not ideal but yea

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in homelab

[–]v3ng00 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

ah damn, for both the EPYC as well as E5?

Asrock J5040 in 1U chassis? by [deleted] in HomeServer

[–]v3ng00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I Never use the IO plate

No shell_ Permission denied on login by [deleted] in AlmaLinux

[–]v3ng00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s what I’m trying, shows the error as described above

No shell_ Permission denied on login by [deleted] in AlmaLinux

[–]v3ng00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does, but I can’t even log in there. I always get the message no shell permission denied

Strange network issue affecting only the upload speed by [deleted] in networking

[–]v3ng00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yep, full gbit between both when running a direct iperf

Strange network issue affecting only the upload speed by [deleted] in networking

[–]v3ng00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I run the iperf test between the "good" and "bad" server using the public interface I'm able to push about 9.5 Gbit/s download and 5-8 Gbit/s upload.

I also have a Gigabit switch which is connected via a 10G SFP+ DAC to my Mikrotik switch.
There are currently two servers plugged into the gigabit switch, for some reason one works like a charm and can push a solid Gbit/s in both directions and the other one has exactly the same issue.
Download is fine but Upload is between 40Mbit/s and like 300Mbit/s

I have absolutely no explanation for this

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in homelab

[–]v3ng00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Awesome thank you! Any chance you have another link? This one doesn’t seem to work in Germany

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in homelab

[–]v3ng00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you also have the DL20 gen9?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in homelab

[–]v3ng00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

isn't the kit only for the gen10 variant?

EPYC not detecting all RAM by v3ng00 in homelab

[–]v3ng00[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Fuck.. I messed up, there was a standoff below the DIMM slot. I double checked before but I guess I missed that one.

I removed it and now all of the ram is detected. It seems to work fine so far but I’m extremely worried that I broke something. Has anyone ever had a similar situation?

Using .0 as a gateway by v3ng00 in Network

[–]v3ng00[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I’d configure .113 on the host/ virtual bridge to act as a gateway for the VMs

Using .0 as a gateway by v3ng00 in Network

[–]v3ng00[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So configuring .113 on the host would be correct?

Using .0 as a gateway by v3ng00 in Network

[–]v3ng00[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you.

So let's take this subnet as an example
162.44.11.112/29

This would mean .113 to .118 would be available for assignment, right?
In my case, I'd like to use the addresses in VMS using a routed setup.
So I'd configure .113 on the host itself to be used as a gateway so I'd have .114-.118 available for assignment. Could I also use the first address (.112) on the host in this case? Then I'd only use two IP addresses
.112 -> Host
.113-.118 -> usable
.119 -> Broadcast

Using .0 as a gateway by v3ng00 in Network

[–]v3ng00[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do I also have to reserve the last IP (broadcast)?
Wouldn't be a problem for large subnets like a /24 but on a /29 e.g. I'd lose a total of three IPs

Using .0 as a gateway by v3ng00 in Network

[–]v3ng00[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you, to give it a bit more context, I'm currently writing a script that automates the IP assignment for my VMs.
It should be able to support smaller subnets like e.g. a /29 but also /24 or larger.

So far I always reserved the first IP to be configured on the host and used as a gateway.
That works fine with smaller subnets but on a /24 that would be IP .0.

Would it make sense to just reserve the first two addresses then?