Re: How can I make unbound's accepting of incoming network connections in application firewall in Catalina 'stick'?

Sorry, no go. I found a solution on superuser with 0 votes ;-). https://superuser.com/a/940696/582447 It turns out that I just had to turn the firewall off and on again. It might have been a necessary last step to make it regenerate something, but after that step, a reboot (or just port

Re: How can I make unbound's accepting of incoming network connections in application firewall in Catalina 'stick'?

Just turn off your firewall!  Seriously, the macOS firewall is an Application firewall. If that suits your risk profile, you can control it through the command line: /usr/libexec/ApplicationFirewall/socketfilterfw -h Port- and packet-based filtering is handled by pfctl, and that’s a lot more

Re: How can I make unbound's accepting of incoming network connections in application firewall in Catalina 'stick'?

It seems to be a code signing issue for /opt/local/sbin/unbound, but I haven’t found out how to get rid of it and MacPorts doesn’t handle it itself (i.e. forces the app to end into a good state or warn why it can’t do it). Gerben Wierda (LinkedIn ) R

How can I make unbound's accepting of incoming network connections in application firewall in Catalina 'stick'?

I am running an extensive MacPorts (with postfix, dovecot, nginx, minion, etc.) on my macOS Server, which is still running macOS Mojave. On one of the other Macs, running macOS Catalina, I run a backup unbound caching nameserver. This also offers me a way to do some minimal testing of the

Re: Using RAM instead of disk for build servers (was: Re: Build servers offline due to failed SSD)

Hi Ryan, thanks for your detailed response. I hadn't thought of some of the build intricacies you mention. Let alone the upcoming silicon change and phasing out of x86. Sounds like your approach is a good balance for longevity, performance, and cost. Cheers Balthasar On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at

Re: Using RAM instead of disk for build servers (was: Re: Build servers offline due to failed SSD)

On Mar 14, 2021, at 06:11, Balthasar Indermuehle wrote: > I used to run mac servers in what now can only be described as the days of > yore... when a 32GB RAM bank cost a lot more than a (spinning) disk - and > those were expensive then too. SSDs were not here yet. I haven't checked > pricing

Re: Build servers offline due to failed SSD

I used to run mac servers in what now can only be described as the days of yore... when a 32GB RAM bank cost a lot more than a (spinning) disk - and those were expensive then too. SSDs were not here yet. I haven't checked pricing lately, but I'd think you could put 256GB of RAM into a server for

Re: Build servers offline due to failed SSD

There was some additional downtime in the last few days but the buildmaster now has a permanent home on a new SSD and is faster than ever. Builds that could not be scheduled during recent downtime have been rescheduled and are in progress. On Mar 14, 2021, at 04:02, Vincent Habchi wrote: >

Re: Build servers offline due to failed SSD

Hi, Wouldn’t it make sense to use some sort of RAM caching to speed up builds instead of SSD? What’s the point of using a permanent storage device for something that is bound to be erased in a very short time? Maybe I’m way off base, though. V.