We can’t ever stop this kind of stuff, but with something like fail2ban you can set it up to block on too many failures.
Really though - ensuring your system is kept up to date and uses strong passwords or use a SSH keys is the best defence. Blocking doesn’t prevent them from trying a few times. Moving SSH to a non standard port will stop most of the automated attacks but it won’t stop someone who is dedicated.
This sounds like you’ll need to do a balance operation. Try this first and see if it helps:
btrfs balance start -dusage=0 -musage=0 /
If not you can increase the number to 5 or 10. This operation reallocates chunks on the disk and ensures they’re filled - check https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Balance.html for details.
Without looking at it it’s probably making a unique request to a resource on a NextDNS subdomain and watching where the request comes from. Like pulling an image from (unique _string).check.nextdns.com. This requires nothing special on the client, it’s making a standard request, and as part of that it needs to do a DNS lookup.
If the source of the and your IP are similar then it’s likely the same network, otherwise it can correlate the source with known resolvers.
I use HASS.agent to help manage my Windows desktop and expose various sensors to HA. It can suspend or hibernate the system. It does use MQTT as its connectivity plane.
You get easy access to their addons with a VM (aka HAOS). You can do the same thing yourself but you have to do it all (creating the containers, configuring them, figuring out how to connect them to HA/your network/etc., updating them as needed) - whereas with HAOS it generally just works. If you want that control great but go in with that understanding.
BTRFS has RAID built into the file system - instead of using MD you use BTRFS profiles which tell the system how to handle data.
For instance
With this set up you could lose one device (of n, the total doesn’t matter), and not lose any data, and still be able to boot to recover with too much hassle.
BTRFS does block checksums, can scan for bit rot and recover from it, and generally tries to make your data safe. It technically supports raid5/6 for user data, the issue is around unclean shutdowns and a potential write hole where you could lose data, but if your system has a UPS backup and is on a relatively recent kernel it’s not any more dangerous than MD raid5/6 as I understand it.
I’d have to check my iptables syntax again but I’m not sure you want the FORWARD between the networks unless C has a manual route to get traffic for the 192.168.15.0/24 network back via B. You just want to NAT A behind B’s IP on 192.168.38.0/24. I think the forwards are sending the traffic without doing NAT on A.
Right now - easy, with the difficulty going up over time as the main Chromium codebase continues to change (and especially as it gets security updates). I think I’ve read that some variants (Brave?) have committed to supporting ManifestV2 for as long as possible, for instance with their own fork.
You don’t need cards to have full bandwidth, they only time it will matter is when you’re loading the models on the card. You need a motherboard with x16 slots but even x4 connections would be good enough. Running the model doesn’t need a lot of bandwidth. Remember you only load the model once then reuse it.
An x4 pcie gen 4 slot has ~7.8 GiB/s theoretical transfer rate (after overhead), a x16 has ~31.5GiB/s - so disk I/O is likely your limit even for a x4 slot.