Unless you have a pro account, notifications are only cached on the server for 12h so that's why you may miss old notifications.

ntfy offers you additional options with instant delivery or the selfhostable server. That requires a server connection and does impact battery a little. On my phone it doesn't show up in the list it's so low, but others have reported more consumption

That said, if you have suggestions that are not super inconvenient, please let me know.

My main goal with this was to make sure it cannot go wild on my own system.

I made this little Dockerfile and script that lets me run Claude in a Docker container. It only has access to the workspace that I'm in, as well as the GitHub and JIRA CLI tool. It can do whatever it wants in the workspace (it's in git and backed up), so I can run it with --dangerously-skip-permissions. It works well for me. I bet there are better ways, and I bet it's not as safe as it could be. I'd love to learn about other ways that people do this.

https://github.com/binwiederhier/sandclaude

Source: I work for a backup company that uses ZFS a lot.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45050192

Points: 203

# Comments: 119

Pushover is an amazing tool and works well. In my obviously biased opinion though, I think that ntfy has a ton more features than Pushover and is fully open source. You can self host all aspects of it or you can use the hosted version on ntfy.sh for free, without signups, or pay for higher limits.

I suggest you try out ntfy;-)

On a personal note, Trixie is very exciting for me because my side project, ntfy [1], was packaged [2] and is now included in Trixie. I only learned about the fact that it was included very late in cycle when the package maintainer asked for license clarifications. As a result the Debian-ized version of ntfy doesn't contain a web app (which is a reaaal bummer), and has a few things "patched out" (which is fine). I approached the maintainer and just recently added build tags [3] to make it easier to remove Stripe, Firebase and WebPush, so that the next Debian-ized version will not have to contain (so many) awkward patches.

As an "upstream maintainer", I must say it isn't obvious at all why the web app wasn't included. It was clearly removed on purpose [4], but I don't really know what to do to get it into the next Debian release. Doing an "apt install ntfy" is going to be quite disappointing for most if the web app doesn't work. Any help or guidance is very welcome!

[1] https://github.com/binwiederhier/ntfy

[2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ntfy

[3] https://github.com/binwiederhier/ntfy/pull/1420

[4] https://salsa.debian.org/ahmadkhalifa/ntfy/-/blob/debian/lat...

Even though I am preaching "application consistent backups" in my original comment (because that's what's important for businesses), my home backup setup is quite simple and isn't even crash consistent :-) I do: Pull via rsync to backup box & ZFS snapshot, then rsync to Hetzner storage box (ZFS snapshotted there, weekly)

My ZFS pool consists of multiple mirrored vdevs, and I scrub the entire pool once a month. I've uncovered drive failures, and storage controller failures this way. At work, we also use ZFS and we've uncovered even failures of entire product lines of hard drives.

Depending on the database you're using, and on your configuration, they may NOT recover, or require manual intervention to recover. There is a reason that MSSQL has a VSS writer in Windows, and that PostgreSQL and MySQL have their own "dump programs" that do clean backups. Pulling the plug (= file system snapshotting) without involving the database/app is risky business.

Databases these days are really resilient, so I'm not saying that $yourfavoriteapp will never recover. But unless you involve the application or a VSS writer (which does that for you), you cannot be sure that it'll come back up.

[1] https://blog.heckel.io/2021/10/19/lossless-mysql-semi-sync-r...

However, ZFS snapshots alone are not a good enough backup if you don't off-site them somewhere else. A server/backplane/storage controller could die or corrupt your entire zpool, or the place could burn down. Lots of ways to fail. You gotta at least zfs send the snapshots somewhere.

Sure, there are environments that have automatically deployed, largely stateless servers. Why back them up if you can recreate them in an hour or two ;-)

Even then, though, if we're talking about important production systems with an RTO of only a few minutes, then having a BCDR solution with instant virtualization is worth your weight in gold. I may be biased though, given that I professionally write BCDR software, hehe.

However, many environments are not like that: There are lots of stateful servers out there with bespoke configurations, lots of "the customer needed this to be that way and it doesn't fit our automation". Having all servers backed up the same way gives you peace of mind if you manage servers for a living. Being able to just spin up a virtual machine of a server and run things from a backup while you restore or repair the original system is truly magical.

I've been working on backup and disaster recovery software for 10 years. There's a common phrase in our realm that I feel obligated to share, given the nature of this article.

> "Friends don't let friends build their own Backup and Disaster Recovery (BCDR) solution"

Building BCDR is notoriously difficult and has many gotchas. The author hinted at some of them, but maybe let me try to drive some of them home.

- Backup is not disaster recovery: In case of a disaster, you want to be up and running near-instantly. If you cannot get back up and running in a few minutes/hours, your customers will lose your trust and your business will hurt. Being able to restore a system (file server, database, domain controller) with minimal data loss (<1 hr) is vital for the survival of many businesses. See Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO).

- Point-in-time backups (crash consistent vs application consistent): A proper backup system should support point-in-time backups. An "rsync copy" of a file system is not a point-in-time backup (unless the system is offline), because the system changes constantly. A point-in-time backup is a backup in which each block/file/.. maps to the same exact timestamp. We typically differentiate between "crash consistent backups" which are similar to pulling the plug on a running computer, and "application consistent backups", which involves asking all important applications to persist their state to disk and freeze operations while the backup is happening. Application consistent backups (which is provided by Microsoft's VSS, as mentioned by the author) significantly reduce the chances of corruption. You should never trust an "rsync copy" or even crash consistent backups.

- Murphy's law is really true for storage media: My parents put their backups on external hard drives, and all of r/DataHoarder seems to buy only 12T HDDs and put them in a RAID0. In my experience, hard drives of all kinds fail all the time (though NVMe SSD > other SSD > HDD), so having backups in multiple places (3-2-1 backup!) is important.

(I have more stuff I wanted to write down, but it's late and the kids will be up early.)