@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
when you say "switch" it's synonymous with a lot of things that aren't required of a repeater, such as mac address tables.
WTF does this have to do with anything? You are now making shit up out of whole cloth.
Please shut the fuck up Jared. I have no idea why you gain pleasure from being an asshole. It amazes me that we have mutual friends.
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Which a small 8 port would work here, but is it worth putting in a switch and needing power there over just running fiber?
Best Answer.
Because any thing else requires power.
Regardless of what he is connecting?
To have 2 Ethernet cables that exceed the limit of the cable, you need a switch in-between the two cables. This repeats the signal.
But it's costly in that you need to have power wherever the first cable ends and the second cable begins. Plus you need to install a switch.
Yes, I understand. I said use a repeater at the top. Then JB was JB, even though when you say "switch" it's synonymous with a lot of things that aren't required of a repeater, such as mac address tables. That doesn't matter though because JB just wants to be a dick all of the time.
I ask for clarity as there are very few things that are universally the right decision and I get a giant ellipsis.
Typical Jared though.
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@DustinB3403 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Which a small 8 port would work here, but is it worth putting in a switch and needing power there over just running fiber?
Best Answer.
Because any thing else requires power.
Regardless of what he is connecting? Because we have no idea what he is actually cabling for
@JaredBusch said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
@wirestyle22 said in Cat5/6 100 meters:
Use a repeater
That is called a switch.....
A dumb switch, yeah
@bnrstnr install glances and run that instead of htop. just curious about the reporting
So did anything change in regards to htop
@dbeato said in Nextcloud Update 14.04 Security Warning:
@wirestyle22 said in Nextcloud Update 14.04 Security Warning:
e positive. I am wondering if what I did is enough hardening-wise though and I can just ignore the error.
I would assume you can ignore it since NextCloud will be going through your Nginx Reverse proxy.
That's my thought. Just wanted to verify.
@dbeato said in Nextcloud Update 14.04 Security Warning:
@dbeato said in Nextcloud Update 14.04 Security Warning:
@wirestyle22 said in Nextcloud Update 14.04 Security Warning:
After updating to the new version, the overview section says this:
There are some warnings regarding your setup. The "Strict-Transport-Security" HTTP header is not set to at least "15552000" seconds. For enhanced security, it is recommended to enable HSTS as described in the security tips ↗.I'm using nginx as a reverse proxy so I added
add_header Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000;to the server block. nginx -t came back successful. Restarting the nginx service and am still receiving the error.The max age needs to be at least 15552000 your number is way lower than that.
Nevermind, I read one less 0.. But what about the engine on the actual Nextcloud server?
I didn't touch nextcloud itself. My thought is that NC can't tell that this is happening because it doesn't have a file to reference on the host itself. Basically a false positive. I am wondering if what I did is enough hardening-wise though and I can just ignore the error.