SonyJunkie

I really like my Model 3 but I hate the association with Musk, I was considering buying it at the end of the lease but I'm having second thoughts. Yes, I know I've already lined his pockets in a small way!!

I haven't experienced the poor build quality, in the 2.5 years I've had it I've not had any issues and only 1 recall for an o-ring replacement on a gas strut.

Tesla needs to be rescued from Musk by one of the established car manufacturers, my vote would be for Mercedes.

Isn't this the plot of The Beekeeper? 😂

I agree, at this point he's holding Tesla back.

Their range of cars has become stale and outdated. His vanity project, the Cybertruck, is a disaster, the Model S and X aren't selling and the Y isn't getting a refresh anytime soon. Tesla can't continue on just the Model 3 sales. They need to compete with the established manufacturers who are now getting their act together when it comes to EVs and also acknowledge that the Chinese EVs are viable alternatives.

Tesla need a small SUV and small compact, it's what people want.

I was going to say he looks like a fatter, older Putin!!

I'm in the UK and my experience is that DPD are one of the better ones, never had any real problems with their deliveries and updates by email and app are great.

But I suppose, we have Yodel and Evri as alternatives and they are proper terrible so the bar isn't very high!!

I believe it is. What stands out to me is £1.04+ vat is not £1.45!!!

Already got 2, but I haven't found one to print that I like 🤣

I would offer to send you one, but stupid Brexit makes sending stuff abroad expensive and complicated 🙄

Out of curiosity, why have you decided to run each service in a separate lxc rather than just one lxc?

I am about to completely overhaul my set up and I'm not sure which way is best.

Hi,

The clone has a different IP address

Hi, thanks for your reply.

when I run mount -a -vvv I get the following:

mount.nfs: timeout set for Tue Aug 8 16:14:10 2023

mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'vers=4.2,addr=192.168.0.188,clientaddr=192.168.0.116' mount.nfs: mount(2): Permission denied

mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'vers=4,minorversion=1,addr=192.168.0.188,clientaddr=192.168.0.116'

mount.nfs: mount(2): Permission denied

mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'vers=4,addr=192.168.0.188,clientaddr=192.168.0.116'

mount.nfs: mount(2): Permission denied

mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'addr=192.168.0.188'

mount.nfs: prog 100003, trying vers=3, prot=6

mount.nfs: trying 192.168.0.188 prog 100003 vers 3 prot TCP port 2049

mount.nfs: prog 100005, trying vers=3, prot=17

mount.nfs: trying 192.168.0.188 prog 100005 vers 3 prot UDP port 661

mount.nfs: mount(2): Permission denied

mount.nfs: access denied by server while mounting 192.168.0.188:/mnt/store/test-share

Hi, thanks for your reply.

Lets call the original Proxmox container CT1 and this has the *arrs Dockers that can access and interact with the NFS share on TrueNAS

Lets call the new Proxmox container CT2 and this is the one giving me the can't access error

Lets call the cloned Proxmox container CT1Clone, this one can access the NFS share.

I think the NFS share is not restricted to any IP address, this is a screenshot of the NFS permissions. https://i.imgur.com/9k5jnw4.png I can also access if from my Windows machine that also has a different IP address.

CT1 & CT1Clone work fine, CT2 doesn't work.