@james thanks!

Hello @benoit Your image that states No backup site for update looks like the configuration of the backup site might not be correct. Please check the backup site content configuration if everything is included and Store automatic-update backups is selected. Go to https://my.$DOMAIN.$TLD/#/backup-sites press the ... button and press Content. It should look like this: [image: 1770288263188-1f88331b-dc83-43fa-9dc8-8850751637a5-image.png] Please also share the logs of the backup that is failing. A warning for Hetzner Storage Boxes. Storage Boxes have a concurrent connections limit of 10. If you use the same Storage Box for multiple Cloudron servers or other services the concurrent connection limit can be exausted leading to failures. One example. If you mount the Storage Box on 2x Cloudron servers and use the same Storage Box for 2x Volumes, 4x concurrent connections are persistently used. Thus, only 6x connections are avaiable. Just to keep that in mind when using Storage Boxes for multiple servers/services.

Looks like there was a temporary issue with Hetzner routing. It's fixed now.

@james said in Bug in user selection UX and dashboard visibility setting in external link configuration: Hello @sansguidon I have looked into the issue and fixed it. Will be part of the next Cloudron release. Thanks @james

@Supaiku said in Graphite & SFTPwon't run?: I'm honestly not quite clear what graphite does, so I'm curious about that. Graphite helps with the graph rendering to collect stats. I don't use SFTP much, but still want thing runinng smoothly and didn't exactly figure out what the initial issue actually was... SFTP provides file browsing services for the containers i.e the Filemanager. Are the containers in "recovery mode" ? Both the containers are dying gracefully, so someone is stopping them explicitly ("waiting for xxx to die).

@pauliusl Debug this step by step: host my.domain.com on your laptop. Does it point to your server IP? ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED When you are moving domains across provides this is quite common. The whole migration process is not atomic.

Thanks @james

@Supaiku in addition to your high load average you also have two apport processes at the top of your list. So something has crashed or was killed and ubuntu is currently collecting logs for this.

@tecbox thanks for the update!

you should have mentioned earlier @james I wish I was aware that it is the problem! The whole cloudron is behind a haproxy that does TCP level proxy. From my understanding it should not affect, as it's one level below the HTTP(S) and WebSocket is above HTTPS. And the console doesn't seem to work for all apps terminals. Any ideas how to narrow down the root cause?

I sshed into the server, and the file really does not exist: cloudron# ls /home/yellowtent/appsdata/f6e82f5e-ae79-403b-b824-f96d8989b4f4/fsmetadata.json ls: cannot access '/home/yellowtent/appsdata/f6e82f5e-ae79-403b-b824-f96d8989b4f4/fsmetadata.json': No such file or directory The content of the directory: cloudron# cd /home/yellowtent/appsdata/f6e82f5e-ae79-403b-b824-f96d8989b4f4/ cloudron# ls -la total 2552 drwxr-xr-x 5 yellowtent yellowtent 4096 Jan 30 23:06 . drwxr-xr-x 4 yellowtent yellowtent 4096 Jan 28 19:35 .. drwxr-xr-x 3 yellowtent yellowtent 4096 Jan 28 20:07 2026-01-24-060000-602 -rw-r--r-- 1 yellowtent yellowtent 6343 Jan 31 23:06 config.json drwxr-xr-x 6 www-data www-data 4096 Jan 30 15:02 data -rw-r--r-- 1 yellowtent yellowtent 2582680 Jan 31 23:06 mysqldump drwxr-xr-x 3 yellowtent yellowtent 4096 Jan 28 20:15 snapshot

Is the IP address correct? It has to be the Cloudron server IP. Do you have a screenshot? Maybe OVH has changed their UI since we wrote those docs.

Hello @jcalag Please ssh into your server and run cloudron-support --troubleshoot and post the output here.

Hi @girish sorry for the delay. I think -D does not necessarily impact performance, my test after removing -D was much quicker but after adding it again it was just as quick. Seems like there's some kind of filesystem caching. Maybe at some point I could analyse the differences but I suspect changing this doesn't impact performance so much. The part that does impact performance a lot is the -x flag, but as far as I've seen, that will only prevent iteration on the remote (s3fs) filesystem if du is initiated on the parent dir, e.g. /mnt and not on the mount itself /mnt/s3fs. Would be a lifesaver if you could add this, but understandable if it cannot be done. If it cannot be done, a workaround to exclude certain volumes from disk usage calculation would be fine too. Or maybe you could add an option to the Disk Usage UI: Offer an option to include/exclude certain volumes before actually executing calculation

@dsp76 yes, run.sh is called by start.sh . Cloudron downloads the backup. At this point, the users of all files are yellowtent. This is the user which Cloudron code runs as. Then , start.sh runs as root (from inside container) Which then calls run.sh Maybe the above helps debugging further.

@jdaviescoates yes, there was a sshfs backup bug and I think 9.0.14 and 9.0.15 had fixed for exactly this. Unfortunately, Cloudron has no way to "force update" a bugged release.

@goseph10 that was a bug. I have fixed this in https://git.cloudron.io/platform/box/-/commit/1594d190eb29071c0aa11ff0a0e48554bb5fc04f You can edit /home/yellowtent/box/src/updater.js and fix line 229: if (!options.skipBackup && sites.length === 0) throw new BoxError(BoxError.BAD_STATE, 'No backup site is enabled to store automatic-update backups. Enable this in a backup site to continue.'); After that systemctl restart box

actually after looking closer in the code, the RRSet record api should also work as ich even for more records. It only would hit an issue, if one record has more than 25 values.

Hi @joseph . Thanks! Yes, the issue was with the encryption password. I successfully created a new app from the backup. However, one question remains: how can I restore a backup to NocoDB without recreating the app? The original restore (to the existing app) kept failing with the role already exists PostgreSQL error. Could this be related to memory limits? I checked and there seemed to be enough memory available everywhere. For context: my NocoDB has many records plus connections to external databases.