Okay, now it makes sense. For my purposes, I would only teed the headscale part for inter device communication.
It makes sense though, rather than paying for a VPN for multiple devices (on those that charge per device) I could route traffic via tailscale / wireguard to a single VPN’d device.

Yeah I hadn’t even thought of doing that in the interface. I assumed it would be in the client settings or connection setup. I have turned it on now. Here’s hoping it works fine from here on out.

❤️

How are you using Headscale, with a thirdparty VPN? I can understand Mullvad might have a Wireguard config option?

:P
I hadn’t even considered running not one, but three VPNs and chaining them together for different functionalities.

I have a public IP and DNS, but as it’s a home lab I need the connectivity of other devices to not depend on a single device (VPS or otherwise). I frequently end up with broken things for short periods and I appreciate Everything not being broken when one thing is.

Also, if I put it on my SOs phone, connectivity needs to never be broken for her even if she can’t get to one or two devices that are broken.

Accessing my dozen services running on my server, plus accessing some other specific devices running in various other places I am not going to open to the internet. Media machine, a second server, laptop, router without opening it to the internet, printers, etc.

I don’t care about the “make your traffic come from somewhere else”, just the “all my devices in my network no matter where they are” bit.

Syncthing actually isn’t running over VPN usually; it’s open to the internet. But the dozen or more other things I host are not open to the internet. Immich for example. And in some cases when Synctding can’t connect I appreciate having the VPN as a backup.

Yes, mesh because I don’t want to have to setup routes through a single device when I add a new one and I don’t want to be dependent on one IP.

Ahg. Okay. I might try headplane again :(

Will try disabling expiry and using the default app. Thanks.

This SnapRAID occupies an interesting middle ground between the least “proper” solution and the most “proper” solution for when more resources aren’t available or justified, it seems.

Rather than a single drive, or dozens of drives, with data randomly duplicated around or lost when individual drives die. Rather than a huge volume on zfs with it’s large setup cost and lack of expandability (until AnyRaid is done) and potentially unneeded additional functionality.

Then mergerfs is a natural expansion offering a unified way to organize and access the data that SnapRAID is securing (instead of mounting all those drives somewhere).

If someone merged these projects into one solution, and added a couple extra functions (like managing compression or deduplication, caching) it seems like it could be a comparable offer to zfs for different use cases. Imagine a NAS offering with this setup by default. Much more intuitive to users I would argue.

Sounds interesting, thank you!