What's coming in 6.0 (take 2)
-
hey guys, let's stick to Cloudron 6 related discussion here
Feel free to open new thread for other topics. -
@girish fair enough
Just to quickly say (sorry) to @scooke re:
the user has no idea about the existence of Cloudron
I'm not sure where you are looking but on https://osinum.fr/ there is this:
Which translates as:
"The core of OSINUM is the Cloudron software and its team of developers."
So 1) they seem quite clear about being based on Cloudron, and 2) they've actually changed what it used to say which @ruihildt was commenting on.
Previously it said: "The core of OSINUM is the open source software Cloudron and its team of developers."
Edit: see my screenshot here https://twitter.com/jdaviescoates/status/1314243996441620480
/end.
-
@jdaviescoates @girish D'accord.
-
@girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
You add a host path as a volume and give it a name. This is most likely some EBS/external hard disk/Block Storage.
I'm assuming volumes will support CIFS unlike current external data storage, right? (if not I had better cancel the Hetzner storage box I just ordered for this purpuse (or just start using it for backups where CIFS is already allowed)!
) -
@girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
@imc67 Yes. Currently, the main restriction is that you can only add host paths under /mnt and /media as a volume. So, you can create some NFS mount or SSHFS mount there and then add it as a volume and then mount it into an app.
I really would appreciate it if you could create a step by step instruction in the docs by that time. I guess more users with large base “disk” would want to use this!
-
@jdaviescoates said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
I'm assuming volumes will support CIFS unlike current external data storage, right? (if not I had better cancel the Hetzner storage box I just ordered for this purpuse (or just start using it for backups where CIFS is already allowed)! )
The underlying problem is still there, CIFS / SMB don't support users and groups in the FS, so i guess it will depend on the apps, if they rely on FS permissions or not
-
@mehdi hmz, thanks, so I'm guessing likely not then.
So Hetzner storage boxes likely a no no for volumes (I guess I'll cancel the one I've just ordered, or just use it for backups)
I wonder what would be a good option...
I guess maybe Hetzner Volumes would work well, but they cost a lot more (a 500GB storage box is 5.68€/mo, whereas a 500GB Volume is 24€/mo)
-
@jdaviescoates said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
So Hetzner storage boxes likely a no no for volumes (I guess I'll cancel the one I've just ordered, or just use it for backups)
So, there's two kinds of storages:
-
Data Directory - This is a location used by the app and only the app uses it exclusively. The app will store say attachments, profile pics, avatars, plugin code and whatever it needs in this directory. Data directory has to be ext4 because the packaging code requires file system permissions to work etc. This is the location you specify in https://docs.cloudron.io/storage/#app-data-directory . You can think of this app as part of an app's "state" (just like the database) and it is thus backed up and restored.
-
External Directory/Volumes - This location can be any file system. Mostly the app just reads file (docs, music, movies etc) from this. So the permissions don't matter. It is also expected that these directories can be shared across apps. This is similar to the home directory on linux or My Documents on Windows. It's just separate directory that apps have access to. If you uninstall, backup apps, that folder is untouched. For these kind of directories, the file system type is not relevant. It can be anything - sshfs, cifs, ext2 whatever.
-
-
@girish OK, thanks, that's clearer.
However, some of the music streaming apps etc like Navidrome (which is what I thought I'd use a Hetzner Storage box CIFS for) can have users with different permissions too, so still not sure if that'll be possible?
Although the way I'd actually want to use it is that only one person (me) will be able to upload music, and all other users will just have read access, so I guess that could work fine?
-
@jdaviescoates said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
However, some of the music streaming apps etc like Navidrome (which is what I thought I'd use a Hetzner Storage box CIFS for) can have users with different permissions too, so still not sure if that'll be possible?
Yes, definitely possible. App users are entirely different from file system permissions. Without getting too technical, users inside an app are just "virtual users". They just exist inside the app's database.
-
@girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
see the WIP tag
Oooh, just looked at that for the first time in a while and I see BigBlueButton and Jitsi Meet are included... who is actively working on them atm, is it you @girish @nebulon ?
Cloudron 6.0 with full text email search, volumes and BBB/ Jitsi would be SO awesome! (loving all the new music/ media apps too!)
-
-
@mehdi said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
Once there are proper Volumes, my River app won't have too much reason to exist, so you can expect a few other apps soon after 6.0 release as I split river into independent apps (namely SickChill, CouchPotato, and Transmission)
Did your River app combine those apps with an added external storage connection bit?
-
@lonk It combines Jellyfin (for which there's already an app now), Transmission, SickChill, Couchpotato (the 3 I just mentioned), a custom file manager (built before Cloudron had one), and a custom TV Shows and Movies streaming interface (built before I integrated Jellyfin). Plus a few custom things, like a script to auto-remove finished torrents on transmission, and a script to auto-convert videos to MP4 for easy streaming in the browser (for my custom streaming interface. I disabled it now that I mainly use jellyfin, which handles this automatically).
-
@mehdi said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
Once there are proper Volumes, my River app won't have too much reason to exist, so you can expect a few other apps soon after 6.0 release as I split river into independent apps (namely SickChill, CouchPotato, and Transmission)
When you have time, please split them out and I can start approving them as unstable already. It also gives me a good test bed to test the volumes stuff across apps and permissions.
-
@girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
When you have time, please split them out and I can start approving them as unstable already.
OK, will do. I will have to pick your brain a little about how to handle authentication for these apps. In river, they're behind a custom auth proxy, as they don't handle auth by themselves.
-
@mehdi said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
OK, will do. I will have to pick your brain a little about how to handle authentication for these apps.
Would it make sense to bring that into box code somehow? Maybe we add some flag in the manifest to turn on this "authentication wall".
@nebulon Is it possible to have a login screen like the surfer app but served from box code? I guess session management possibly won't work since app has no clue about this? Maybe logout won't work as well since there is no logout button in the app.
-
@girish said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
Would it make sense to bring that into box code somehow? Maybe we add some flag in the manifest to turn on this "authentication wall".
It would be possible yeah. An other possibility would be to have a standard way to do it in the "base image", to make it easy to implement in the apps that need it. I would probably go with the "base image" path, because it would be easier to configure on an app level IMO.
-
@mehdi Good idea. Maybe then for the moment we can copy/paste apache configs in every app (like https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/simple-torrent-app/-/blob/master/apache/cloud-torrent.conf ) for now and once we have a something common, I can try to put it in the next base image.
