tmpfs support in the manifest

[nebulon]

Mounting /tmp or /run as tmpfs types could easily be done, however it may cause lots of side-effects with regards to memory usage.

So if we were to add that, would it be accounted into the memory limit of the whole app? Would we need to specify and thus also reserve memory with a fixed amount? Of course those questions would apply to redis as well, but redis in Cloudron case is a "service" which has its own memory limits and is well isolated.

On top of those questions, it would also increase the moving parts for the WordPress app package to support and test.

And of course the current package is on apache, so not sure if nginx fastcgi even applies at all here.

[MooCloud_Matt]

Hey @nebulon ,
it's more an addition for the near future.
Apache can use FastCGI cache too btw, but nginx is more optimized, and as we have discuss in the pass in chat, WP and NextCloud for example could gain a lot of responsiveness and memory reduction usage switching to Nginx.

For the memory limit, docker already support tmpfs , and it support the limitation of that volume too. https://docs.docker.com/storage/tmpfs/

To boost a medium to big website a FastCGI cache can be about just 50mb to 100mb.

[Lonkle]

@MooCloud_Matt Def agree on the WP Nginx comment. And would love to see some WP benchmarks using FastCGI cache. I hope something comes of this thread.

PS. I'm Joel, nice to meet you. I hear you're one of the Wordpress Dev guys around here. I'm a huge Wordpress fan and just joined Cloudron as a Dev. So, just wanted to say hi to you since I know a lot of recent WP speed improvements came from your threads before I joined!

[MooCloud_Matt]

@Lonk
Hey Joel, nice to chat with you too =D.

Improvement are probably coming in v6, me and my team have already develop a beta WP app for cloudron that use OLS, @girish have access to the project to check with us the future steps to push it on the AppStore or to the public.

[Lonkle]

@MooCloud_Matt Oh, nice, I've had really good experiences with Wordpress hosted via OLS personally so I love that you and your team are working on this.

If I might ask, why did you start your Wordpress OLS Custom app? Was it simply due to the speed enhancements and if so, are you seeing decent improvements over the Apache Cloudron App Store install?

[MooCloud_Matt]

@Lonk said in tmpfs support in the manifest:

@MooCloud_Matt Oh, nice, I've had really good experiences with Wordpress hosted via OLS personally so I love that you and your team are working on this.

During the beta test we have over 3 to 5 times the performance in general (speed, size of website, perception of loading), using as start a non optimized WordPress demo website.
(Probably if u manually optimize: image, CSS, JS, HTML, CriticalCSS, ecc ecc the improvement will be less, but OLS will do everything automatically).
This is because the nginxproxy-apache setup used by cloudron doesn't provide deep optimization that we have implemented in OLS, tanks to LScache integration.

OLS offer some optimization, it's event driven as Nginx, and it's full asyc as for nginx, but it doesn't need FPM or FastCGI to elaborate PHP script as for Apache.
So it's offer a good mix of the 2 webserver, and then LiteSpeed have improve that integrating a WordPress Level cache plugin in to the webserver, so that Wordpress and the webserver ca share the same cache and work together.

[robi]

@MooCloud_Matt very cool, I used to play with highly optimized webservers like lighty, gwan, even a java one that was surprisingly fast by doing things right.

Would love to see OLS used here.

[MooCloud_Matt]

@robi said in tmpfs support in the manifest:

Would love to see OLS used here.

we have OLS ready in beta, just working with cloudron to have 3° party app on the store with a custom license.
We want to use something like a Commons Clause + Apache or Prosperity Public License, so that user can use it, and can read the code and if you want collaborate too, but Cloudron don't need to maintain it.

[robi]

Benefits for using it as an alternative to the Nginx rev-proxy?

[MooCloud_Matt]

@robi
OLS, for what we have tested is not good as nginx as container proxy, especially because nginx have push this as his main features.

If u use Docker/Kube, and you want the max from your stack, just go on nginx.
There are good proxy on the market especially for API, but nginx proxy cache can be use to speed up, not only json file, and standard API request. But also image, js, css, html ecc ecc

That make nginx the king of general proxy for container environment (and it can be use to proxy request to FPM directly no webserver needed inside of the container)

[robi]

cool, thought so, thanks.

the addition of a load balancer will be good for multi-cloudron use and Apps across them.

[Lonkle]

@MooCloud_Matt said in tmpfs support in the manifest:

@robi said in tmpfs support in the manifest:

Would love to see OLS used here.

we have OLS ready in beta, just working with cloudron to have 3° party app on the store with a custom license.
We want to use something like a Commons Clause + Apache or Prosperity Public License, so that user can use it, and can read the code and if you want collaborate too, but Cloudron don't need to maintain it.

Love this idea. I think they maintain between both of them (@girish and @nebulon) way too many apps already. It’s incredibly impressive, but a 3rd Party App on the store would help with that.

I wonder how that would be implemented. My personal suggestion would be a Feature Request for `The App Store code to allow for adding external JSON libraries of new apps since that’s all the current store is right now, only supporting a first party source, Cloudron’s.

I think adding custom app sources would benefit both developers and users alike, but we’ll have to see how they feel about it since it’s their platform.

[mehdi]

@MooCloud_Matt said in tmpfs support in the manifest:

Prosperity Public License

This would mean it would be forbidden to use this app for commercial use. It would just be a trial.

I must say, I for one am not thrilled to have such apps on the app store.

The Commons clause is still not great, but better.

[Lonkle]

I’m against any licensing that limits use of an app. But I’m for 3rd party persistent sources in the Cloudron App Store. Only tech people will realize it’s a thing, and we’ll always get to be on the bleeding edge. It would also make beta testing new converted apps much easier if the App Store had the ability to add custom sources of apps leading to a simple file in JSON format with all the data of the new app or apps.

[MooCloud_Matt]

@mehdi
In our case, end customer can use it, even in 3° party cloud platform, but can't be use in a SaaS like solution or used ad Selling Point for competitors.

If it will be impossible to have custom license on the app store we need to offer those image just to our customer, optimizing a image like that one of OLS or the new image with Nginx take a lot of time, and they have our knowledge inside of them.

Big software that use similar license: Redis, MongoDB

[Lonkle]

@MooCloud_Matt I just realized I could use LDAP to simply grab an access_token and create my own Cloudron Alternative App Store for devs.

[MooCloud_Matt]

@Lonk
you mean for a private docker registry ?

[Lonkle]

@MooCloud_Matt said in tmpfs support in the manifest:

@Lonk
you mean for a private docker registry ?

Though I could do that yes, I was speaking more in terms to an actual alternative App Store, private or public registries wouldn’t matter. I’d probably originally make it only public registries at first.

Like, I’ve been wanting to create Dot the Repair Bot Cloudron app but it’s more of a Cloudron add-on and probably doesn’t belong in the official store (maybe, not sure). But if it didn’t and I still wanted it to be accessible - I could build an alternative App Store with the docker add-on and put apps on there.

Orrrr, the official App Store could gain sources in which case I would just host a JSON file on BackBlaze and give people the source’s URL to use and it would pop up in the store as a third party app.

It would make beta testing apps with people wildly easier if the Cloudron App Store allowed for more “app sources” than just its hard coded internal source that @girish and @nebulon maintain alone.