-
@girish Sounds good, thanks! I can't say I've noticed many help requests related to app performance, but I wonder if you might need to include somewhere some details about what kind of server will be needed to run heavy apps like this. I'm not sure where that info would go - if it's on the front page it could scare away people who want to try but think they need an expensive monster VPS to use Cloudron, but also I wouldn't want to see users disappointed that their $5 DO droplet doesn't cut it.
@scooke said in Jitsi Meet:
I'm not sure where that info would go - if it's on the front page it could scare away people who want to try but think they need an expensive monster VPS to use Cloudron, but also I wouldn't want to see users disappointed that their $5 DO droplet doesn't cut it.
Perhaps you've never seen it before, but if you try to install more apps than can run on your VPS (I think just based on how much RAM is available) you do get a warning saying that in order to intall x app you need to free up or increase resources.
-
@scooke said in Jitsi Meet:
I'm not sure where that info would go - if it's on the front page it could scare away people who want to try but think they need an expensive monster VPS to use Cloudron, but also I wouldn't want to see users disappointed that their $5 DO droplet doesn't cut it.
Perhaps you've never seen it before, but if you try to install more apps than can run on your VPS (I think just based on how much RAM is available) you do get a warning saying that in order to intall x app you need to free up or increase resources.
@jdaviescoates oh, believe me, I’ve seen that more often than I care to recount! But that was after I’d been using it, paying for it, and was committed to keeping my Cloudron. I’m thinking of a situation when someone new signs up to run Jitsi, as an example, with an underpowered vps, only to then discover they should have had something more powerful. But, they’ve already paid for the vps, and they aren’t about to go get another one (budgets), so, bye bye Cloudron.
If I recall, the warning that pops up (that you mentioned) doesn’t actually stop you from installing that next app anyway, unless the warning has changed. I’ve gone several apps beyond those warnings before I saw a slowdown, but then paid for it in a performance drop! Anyway, this warning is totally different from the type of notice I suggested.
A life lived in fear is a life half-lived
-
@jdaviescoates oh, believe me, I’ve seen that more often than I care to recount! But that was after I’d been using it, paying for it, and was committed to keeping my Cloudron. I’m thinking of a situation when someone new signs up to run Jitsi, as an example, with an underpowered vps, only to then discover they should have had something more powerful. But, they’ve already paid for the vps, and they aren’t about to go get another one (budgets), so, bye bye Cloudron.
If I recall, the warning that pops up (that you mentioned) doesn’t actually stop you from installing that next app anyway, unless the warning has changed. I’ve gone several apps beyond those warnings before I saw a slowdown, but then paid for it in a performance drop! Anyway, this warning is totally different from the type of notice I suggested.
@scooke said in Jitsi Meet:
Anyway, this warning is totally different from the type of notice I suggested.
Fair enough.
I guess something like what you're suggesting is in some ways already covered by the Required Memory field already displayed on apps in the app store? e.g. this for Discourse:
Although I think perhaps @staff should change "Required memory" to "Minimum required memory" or something else that includes the word minimum (because as a rule of thumb I've often found that really you want at least twice the quoted required memory)
-
@scooke said in Jitsi Meet:
Anyway, this warning is totally different from the type of notice I suggested.
Fair enough.
I guess something like what you're suggesting is in some ways already covered by the Required Memory field already displayed on apps in the app store? e.g. this for Discourse:
Although I think perhaps @staff should change "Required memory" to "Minimum required memory" or something else that includes the word minimum (because as a rule of thumb I've often found that really you want at least twice the quoted required memory)
@jdaviescoates Ah yes, I agree with that. I have explained enough times by now that the memory there is not "reserved" (which "required" seems to imply). Will fix the string.
edit: turns out I had already fixed this to say "Required at least xx memory". I guess you screenshot was from the website which I will fix.
-
@scooke said in Jitsi Meet:
Anyway, this warning is totally different from the type of notice I suggested.
Fair enough.
I guess something like what you're suggesting is in some ways already covered by the Required Memory field already displayed on apps in the app store? e.g. this for Discourse:
Although I think perhaps @staff should change "Required memory" to "Minimum required memory" or something else that includes the word minimum (because as a rule of thumb I've often found that really you want at least twice the quoted required memory)
@jdaviescoates Your examples assume a user who has already signed up and who, in my scenario, is in the process of discovering their VPS isn't up to par. What I am suggesting is some notice, pre-signup, that running this or that app (like Confluence - 4GB ramDiscourse - 2GB ram, Gitlab - 3GB ram, Mautic -1GB ram, the two Minecrafts 1.25 GB ram, NodeBB - 1GB ram, Weblate - 3.5 GB!!) will require a VPS with some minimum specs. That way they can (hopefully) ensure that the VPS they will purchase will already be sufficient for the apps they want to run.
Maybe some kind of chart showing a few combos of apps and the required min RAM.
For me, I liked Cloudron from the start, but as apps were added I had to move everything from one VPS which had been sufficient to a more powerful one (3 times actually, my current VPS ought to be fine for a year or two!). Now, someone just coming to a much more mature VPS might still be using a level of VPS that I had started with... which won't be enough if they want to "try it all"! Like I said, I have no clue about these metrics, but it seems to me to be a useful chart to display pre-signup to help the customer know they are coming in with the appropriately-powered VPS.
I just noticed that https://www.cloudron.io/personal.html, https://www.cloudron.io/business.html, and https://www.cloudron.io/webhosting.html actually do have a sample combo of apps. That might be a good place to put a suggested minimum of RAM, perhaps as a pop-up over the combo as a whole, or as a pop-up over the app name. I know I would appreciate that sort of heads-up detail.
A life lived in fear is a life half-lived
-
@jdaviescoates Your examples assume a user who has already signed up and who, in my scenario, is in the process of discovering their VPS isn't up to par. What I am suggesting is some notice, pre-signup, that running this or that app (like Confluence - 4GB ramDiscourse - 2GB ram, Gitlab - 3GB ram, Mautic -1GB ram, the two Minecrafts 1.25 GB ram, NodeBB - 1GB ram, Weblate - 3.5 GB!!) will require a VPS with some minimum specs. That way they can (hopefully) ensure that the VPS they will purchase will already be sufficient for the apps they want to run.
Maybe some kind of chart showing a few combos of apps and the required min RAM.
For me, I liked Cloudron from the start, but as apps were added I had to move everything from one VPS which had been sufficient to a more powerful one (3 times actually, my current VPS ought to be fine for a year or two!). Now, someone just coming to a much more mature VPS might still be using a level of VPS that I had started with... which won't be enough if they want to "try it all"! Like I said, I have no clue about these metrics, but it seems to me to be a useful chart to display pre-signup to help the customer know they are coming in with the appropriately-powered VPS.
I just noticed that https://www.cloudron.io/personal.html, https://www.cloudron.io/business.html, and https://www.cloudron.io/webhosting.html actually do have a sample combo of apps. That might be a good place to put a suggested minimum of RAM, perhaps as a pop-up over the combo as a whole, or as a pop-up over the app name. I know I would appreciate that sort of heads-up detail.
@scooke I made this a separate topic because it's important to discuss.
I think suggesting something even if it's making a lot of assumptions is a good idea. Do you think we should recommend VPS/server providers as well? Thing is a 2GB server on say provider X is very different from provider Y. Especially, hard disk/CPU/network performance varies wildly between providers.
Or maybe, we need to just write down a framework that helps user decide? Like decide on possible apps, calculate memory requirements, ideally choose a server provider who is geographically near you etc ?
-
@scooke I made this a separate topic because it's important to discuss.
I think suggesting something even if it's making a lot of assumptions is a good idea. Do you think we should recommend VPS/server providers as well? Thing is a 2GB server on say provider X is very different from provider Y. Especially, hard disk/CPU/network performance varies wildly between providers.
Or maybe, we need to just write down a framework that helps user decide? Like decide on possible apps, calculate memory requirements, ideally choose a server provider who is geographically near you etc ?
@girish My two cents (and coming from someone supporting a mission-critical product written by a Fortune 500 company that's used by about 95% of all Fortune 100 companies, so "support" and "tech docs" are my jam, haha, hence why I've contributed to the docs at least a few times)... usually in the documentation it is best to clarify what you have tested on, rather than making specific recommendations because people could assume then that you only support it running on a particular provider for example. So I'd recommend something like "Tested on such-and-such plan with X provider", and then specifically make a note about performance varying between providers and then the general "minimum recommended" requirements regardless of provider for Cloudron to run.
--
Dustin Dauncey
www.d19.ca -
@jdaviescoates Ah yes, I agree with that. I have explained enough times by now that the memory there is not "reserved" (which "required" seems to imply). Will fix the string.
edit: turns out I had already fixed this to say "Required at least xx memory". I guess you screenshot was from the website which I will fix.
@girish said in Recommended Server Specs:
I guess you screenshot was from the website which I will fix.
Correct. I was indeed from the website as that's what people will see first before seeing the App store within Cloudron itself.
-
@girish My two cents (and coming from someone supporting a mission-critical product written by a Fortune 500 company that's used by about 95% of all Fortune 100 companies, so "support" and "tech docs" are my jam, haha, hence why I've contributed to the docs at least a few times)... usually in the documentation it is best to clarify what you have tested on, rather than making specific recommendations because people could assume then that you only support it running on a particular provider for example. So I'd recommend something like "Tested on such-and-such plan with X provider", and then specifically make a note about performance varying between providers and then the general "minimum recommended" requirements regardless of provider for Cloudron to run.
@d19dotca Yes, this is perfect. I imagine most of the discrepencies between providers will come down to IO performance, network, and CPU resource allocation (if shared). So picking a standard 1 or 2 provider+VPS tiers will give people a better idea when comparing. Things get even harder when talking about bare metal as someone might pick parts that on-paper seem to be the same as a VPS provider and end up with a worse experience. Not sure how to address that tbh. Building systems and knowledge of parts is not exactly common knowledge afaik
-
@jdaviescoates Your examples assume a user who has already signed up and who, in my scenario, is in the process of discovering their VPS isn't up to par. What I am suggesting is some notice, pre-signup, that running this or that app (like Confluence - 4GB ramDiscourse - 2GB ram, Gitlab - 3GB ram, Mautic -1GB ram, the two Minecrafts 1.25 GB ram, NodeBB - 1GB ram, Weblate - 3.5 GB!!) will require a VPS with some minimum specs. That way they can (hopefully) ensure that the VPS they will purchase will already be sufficient for the apps they want to run.
Maybe some kind of chart showing a few combos of apps and the required min RAM.
For me, I liked Cloudron from the start, but as apps were added I had to move everything from one VPS which had been sufficient to a more powerful one (3 times actually, my current VPS ought to be fine for a year or two!). Now, someone just coming to a much more mature VPS might still be using a level of VPS that I had started with... which won't be enough if they want to "try it all"! Like I said, I have no clue about these metrics, but it seems to me to be a useful chart to display pre-signup to help the customer know they are coming in with the appropriately-powered VPS.
I just noticed that https://www.cloudron.io/personal.html, https://www.cloudron.io/business.html, and https://www.cloudron.io/webhosting.html actually do have a sample combo of apps. That might be a good place to put a suggested minimum of RAM, perhaps as a pop-up over the combo as a whole, or as a pop-up over the app name. I know I would appreciate that sort of heads-up detail.
@scooke said in Recommended Server Specs:
Your examples assume a user who has already signed up and who, in my scenario, is in the process of discovering their VPS isn't up to par. What I am suggesting is some notice, pre-signup, that running this or that app (like Confluence - 4GB ramDiscourse - 2GB ram, Gitlab - 3GB ram, Mautic -1GB ram, the two Minecrafts 1.25 GB ram, NodeBB - 1GB ram, Weblate - 3.5 GB!!) will require a VPS with some minimum specs. That way they can (hopefully) ensure that the VPS they will purchase will already be sufficient for the apps they want to run.
I don't know how it works on other providers, but my experience is mostly with Hetzner where increasing the size of a VPS is really insanely easy. So I started out on a tiny package and have just upgraded as and when I've needed to. And so discovering my VPS needs a bit more power really isn't an issue for me.
I guess with some providers it could be a real pain, but given how relatively easy it is to migrate Cloudron from one VPS to another, I'm not sure how much of an issue the scenario you outline really is.
If anything, addressing it may end up making people think they need a far more powerful VPS than they really do and then not diving in and trying it all out
-
@scooke I made this a separate topic because it's important to discuss.
I think suggesting something even if it's making a lot of assumptions is a good idea. Do you think we should recommend VPS/server providers as well? Thing is a 2GB server on say provider X is very different from provider Y. Especially, hard disk/CPU/network performance varies wildly between providers.
Or maybe, we need to just write down a framework that helps user decide? Like decide on possible apps, calculate memory requirements, ideally choose a server provider who is geographically near you etc ?
Or maybe, we need to just write down a framework that helps user decide? Like decide on possible apps, calculate memory requirements, ideally choose a server provider who is geographically near you etc ?
Have been toying with this idea for some time..basically a “wizard” one can fill out: select apps and as you mention it calculates and suggests server sizes. My focus was only one provider though(DO)
-
Or maybe, we need to just write down a framework that helps user decide? Like decide on possible apps, calculate memory requirements, ideally choose a server provider who is geographically near you etc ?
Have been toying with this idea for some time..basically a “wizard” one can fill out: select apps and as you mention it calculates and suggests server sizes. My focus was only one provider though(DO)
@plusone-nick Yeah this would work if you focus on a particular provider but breaks down when you introduce the different hardware between providers. For instance it can't just say "You need 2 cores". 2 cores from an AMD phenom X2 550 and 2 cores from an RMD 5800 are very different. Obviously this is exaggerated but helps illustrate the issue. Not saying this is a bad idea but just pointing out that its an issue with many factors to consider. Not an easy problem.
So in your example using DO and Hetzner may be good examples as "tested" providers.
-
@plusone-nick Yeah this would work if you focus on a particular provider but breaks down when you introduce the different hardware between providers. For instance it can't just say "You need 2 cores". 2 cores from an AMD phenom X2 550 and 2 cores from an RMD 5800 are very different. Obviously this is exaggerated but helps illustrate the issue. Not saying this is a bad idea but just pointing out that its an issue with many factors to consider. Not an easy problem.
So in your example using DO and Hetzner may be good examples as "tested" providers.
@atrilahiji yeah the multi vendor issue makes sense like what would you rather be smacked on the head with? a pound of bricks or feathers?
Choose wisely not all pounds are created equal lolMight be cumbersome but keeping tabs on when providers introduce a new generation of hardware or at lease what is currently running
Also DO and others have varying types of servers, mainly CPU optimized and Memory optimized for example so having data on how those perform vs regular instances would be nice. Have been looking at the memory optimized in terms of testing efficiency.
Will keep playing with the idea on DO for now
-
@girish My two cents (and coming from someone supporting a mission-critical product written by a Fortune 500 company that's used by about 95% of all Fortune 100 companies, so "support" and "tech docs" are my jam, haha, hence why I've contributed to the docs at least a few times)... usually in the documentation it is best to clarify what you have tested on, rather than making specific recommendations because people could assume then that you only support it running on a particular provider for example. So I'd recommend something like "Tested on such-and-such plan with X provider", and then specifically make a note about performance varying between providers and then the general "minimum recommended" requirements regardless of provider for Cloudron to run.
@d19dotca said in Recommended Server Specs:
So I'd recommend something like "Tested on such-and-such plan with X provider",
I like this
