I too am running Authentik in an LXC and am using the default docker-compose.yml. Did you make sure to define your .env file correctly? Are you able to connect to the docker container itself after deployment? You may need to blow the DB volume away and try again because it will only provision on first run.

I like Self-hosted Show, as well. Sometimes it feels like they talk about a subject immediately after I start looking into it. The home lab zeitgeist can be eerie, I guess.

A little rough, to be honest. It’s a docker-compose deployment, but it requires you to run make to deploy it. The makefile does extra configuration and such to allow the containers to come up healthy. It works, but it’s overcomplicated and styled after their own deployments, so probably way more compute than what is needed for one household.

Oh and because of this protracted topology, it’s tough to hide behind a reverse proxy.

I’ve been using this, as well. They default to hosting your “vault.” It does peer-to-peer syncing, if you don’t want to have a server involved at all. I’m running their self-hosted server, but that’s only after I decided that AnyType was what I was looking for. I really like that it’s object based, so you can create templates for things like meetings that are their own type, separate from a bog-standard page.

You said you added the Tailscale network, but how wide did you go? By default when you load the plugin and activate the interface, it just gives its own IP as the network (/32). If you added that, then only traffic with that specific origin will hit your route. It’s crazy, but for my firewall rules (not routing) to work, I had to define the network as a 100.0.0.0/8, which is gigantic. You may have to do that with the route as you can’t otherwise set the gateway on the interface as it’s not hosting the DHCP server.

Adding on to this:

These are all great points, but I wanted to share something that I wish I’d known before I spun up my array… The configuration of your array matters a lot. I had originally chosen to use RAIDZ1 as it’s the most efficient with capacity while still offering a little fault tolerance. This was a mistake, but in my defense, the hard data on this really wasn’t distributed until long after I had moved my large (for me) dataset to the array. I really wish I had gone with a Striped Mirror configuration. The benefits are pretty overwhelming:

• Performance is better than even RAIDZ2, especially as individual disk size increases.
• Fault tolerance is better as you could have up to 50% of the disks fail, so long as one disk in a mirrored set remains functional.
• Fault recovery is better. With traditional arrays with distributed chunks, you have to resilver (rebuild) the entire array, requiring more time, costing performance and shortening the life of the unaffected drives.
• You can stripe mismatched sets of mirrored drives, so long as the mirrored set is identical, without having the array default to the size of the smallest member. This allows you to grow your array more organically, rather than having to replace every drive, one at a time, resilvering after each change.

Yes, you pay for these gains with less usable space, but platter drives are getting cheaper and cheaper, the trade seems more worth it than ever. Oh and I realize that it wasn’t obvious, but I am still using ZFS to manage the array, just not in a RAIDZn configuration.