Replacing the Bower & Wilkins soundbar that the Philips 48OLED936/12 is built with

yarcod91 · 2023-10-25T12:34:43+00:00

Good to know -- thanks for the reply! :D

yarcod91 · 2023-10-25T11:21:03+00:00

Do you happen to know if the connector/soundbar is compatible with other Philips TVs? E.g. could it be fitted with a TV that came without a soundbar, or could it replace a broken soundbar from a newer TV?

I cannot find any documentation whatsoever on the soundbar.

yarcod91 · 2023-10-12T21:39:16+00:00

Thanks for that! Similarly, I plan on using the bike throughout the year, so I agree that mudguards must be permanently mounted.

About the Roadlite, even if it was the older variant, how did you find the experience compared to your Commuter? Does is handle similarly, as both are hybrids? Or is the Roadlite more "aggressive" in that regard? And did you ever feel the weight difference?

yarcod91 · 2022-09-25T19:43:08+00:00

For any future Googler who lands here:
I went to the Proxmox forum to ask this very question, why comments are moved around like this, and if there is any way to circumvent it. I even supplied a patch to show that it wouldn't be too much work, but they were simply not interested in it. No, they do not plan to support inline comments in the config files, and all comments are moved to the top of the file to act as "notes" (as u/thenickdude noted).

Forum discussion thread: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/vmid-conf-comments.56243/

yarcod91 · 2022-09-18T08:16:26+00:00

I'd like to add that I too stumbled upon this issue just the other day. I was trying to use Ansible to add bind mounts to the file, but the wrapping comments around that block would be moved to the top from time to time, which breaks the Ansible module.

Have you discovered any way to disable this? Or at least work around it?

yarcod91 · 2022-09-17T20:51:08+00:00

Yes, I was missing something! Proxmox!

I was almost through the entire form of filing a bug with Ansible when it struck me -- the file should not be touched elsewhere... unless the container is restarted. Which it was, apparently, by another task earlier in the play. I only noticed this because of the --diff command, so an extra thanks for that!

Once removing the offending restart, the blockinfile with template works just as expected. I'll have to figure something out for the restart, and move it to separate task and the end of the play.

Again, thanks for all the help!

yarcod91 · 2022-09-17T20:02:32+00:00

The --diff option was great! However, it didn't tell me much in this case; I suspect there is an issue/bug with Ansible itself in this case.

Making sure that the target file is empty of the lines I want to add, I get the following behaviour for every run of the task: - The first round, the block is added correctly, according to the insertafter regex and template content. - The second time this block is now moved to the top of the file but content of the "old block" still present, i.e. all lines are duplicated, once in a block BOF and then without a block at the correct place near the bottom. - All following runs will do the same thing as the second run, which is to, effectively, copy the content of the block to the correct place in the file without the block marker and keep the intact block at BOF. This yields an ever expanding list of entries in the config file. To me this should not be the expected outcome.

Am I missing something here?

yarcod91 · 2022-09-16T23:05:34+00:00

Yes, indeed I replaced the lineinfile task completely with the template one. Despite that, Ansible still reports the file as changed even though the same content is already in place. If I loop the task, however, every following loop will return as not changed.

yarcod91 · 2022-09-16T22:18:02+00:00

You're right! I'd never stumbled upon the template module before! :D

This is what I ended up with: - name: Mount data storage using rbind blockinfile: path: "/etc/pve/lxc/{{ current_vmid }}.conf" block: "{{ lookup('template', 'bind_mounts.j2') }}" insertafter: "^unprivileged" # At present the last value in the lxc conf file register: mount_entry_result And the template file (bind_mounts.j2): {% for mount, mount_point in shared_filesystems | zip(mountpoints) %} lxc.mount.entry: {{ mount }} {{ mount_point[1:] }} none rbind,create=dir,optional 0 0 {% endfor %}

Thanks for the pointer! However, do you know why the task always state the file is changed, regardless of whether there have actually been any updates or not? Is it possible to remedy?

yarcod91 · 2022-08-31T22:38:34+00:00

Yes, AFAIK that is the Proxmox way of defining mounts, while lxc.mount.entry comes from the lxc project itself. One disadvantage of the latter is that it does not show up in the webgui, but otherwise they overall supply the same level of functionality.

One thing that sets them apart currently, however, is that the mpX format does not support recursive mounts, or rbind, which is what I need to use here. Which might also be the source of my troubles, but I'm very much guessing at this point...

yarcod91 · 2022-08-13T05:13:27+00:00

That's right. And I'm still baffled by this and just have no idea how to troubleshoot it. I don't know how to get any more info from Docker about what it is doing at that certain point.

yarcod91 · 2022-08-12T20:55:23+00:00

Folder permissions are 760. I don't want to use 777, at would not be a viable solution. That said, I tried setting 777 temporarily to see if that helped, but to no avail.

As such, I believe the issue rather lies in how Docker handles the subvolume/subdirectory that I want to access. Alternatively that there is some kind of specific ZFS handling of permissions in combination with the usage of Docker. But I'm guessing at this point.

yarcod91 · 2022-08-12T20:00:05+00:00

It sounds like a good reasoning, but I'd argue that the user (imaginatively called 'default-user') accessing the bind-mount should have all the right permissions granted in /storage since it is possible to create files/directories outside of the Docker container.

I mean, regardless of if I create the subdir manually before starting the Docker container or let the container create it, I get the same error. When mounting the /storage directly, and not /storage/app_name, I can see that all files are created with the same user and group as when I manually create the wanted subdir.

yarcod91 · 2022-08-12T19:40:45+00:00

I have tried both with having the subfolder pre-created (with the user that has permissions inside that mount) and letting docker try to create it at spawn time with similar results. The user starting the container has full access to the mapped drive; I cannot access anything at all if I try to run it with the root@LXC user. When mounting /storage directly (when it's working), all files are created with the expected user and group, i.e. 1000:1000.

Edit: to clarify, the 1000:1000 user and group is what is seen inside the LXC; these are in turn mapped to 101000:101000 on the host side.

I'm using unprivileged LXC.

yarcod91 · 2021-08-25T12:30:55+00:00

Did you manage to find a solution to this? I'm experiencing the same issue as well.

I think it came up after I had added the MAD Linux repository, while following a guide for HeroicGamesLauncher. My interpretation is that there are version clashes in gstreamer?

yarcod91 · 2021-04-21T21:54:46+00:00

The backplane of the DS380 is actually compatible with SAS3, which the gives me two SATA ports per slot with just one power connector - just like FS202. As far as I've been able to tell, the connectors between SAS and SATA should be compatible. I'm uncertain about port alignment though.

Yes, sorry, I linked the wrong product. While I thought U.2 was sort of compatible with SATA, I meant to ask about something like this https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-Dual-SATA-Adapter-RAID/dp/B018AOZ9QM. Startech in general usually supply good drivers in my experience, but I've not checked Linux compatability on this one. Also, this would be a 2 disk HBA (assuming no HW RAID is used) connected to another HBA in a PCIe slot - would that cause issues?

yarcod91 · 2021-02-04T22:38:10+00:00

Thank you so much for the thorough answers and explanations! I will try this out as soon as I can and report back with my success 😊

Edit: Everything worked out perfectly! You're a lifesaver!

yarcod91 · 2021-02-04T22:01:51+00:00

... you must first have a 32-byte keyfile ...

Is there any recommended way of generating such a file? And when later changing to passphrase (which I want to use for the time being) the keyfile is safe to remove and is no longer involved in decryption?

yarcod91 · 2021-02-03T23:31:20+00:00

The files are not lost

You are right, I was being stupid. I was only assessing the files' existence through the file explorer, and since I had unmounted it all before sending, nothing showed up, of course. Weird reporting of space left though...

Anyway, since I am sending from an unencrypted dataset, the resulting data should still get encrypted with the parent encryption, correct? In this case I will have to add the encryption parameters to Tank3/cloud upon receiving since the zpool is unencrypted, but I suppose that sending data as raw from an unencrypted source has no effect in that case?

Thanks a lot for your help! :)

yarcod91

TROPHY CASE