Cloudron Forum

Hi @James , noted, will send you a DM with the link to the HAR file shortly. Thanks in advance for your assistance!

Hello @loudlemur Thanks for the report. The minio package has been fixed to use the correct URL.

@imc67 can you try the above settings on your server? Also, as seen above Query OK, 20613 rows affected (0.11 sec) , it took one tenth of a second to update 20000 rows. Maybe you can check how long it takes in yours. Point being that 20k rows has no effect on disk I/O on our server atleast.

@hakunamatata is it reproducible on chrome?

Glad we got down to the issue in the end.

Alright, investigating the matomo health checker next.

Stubborn dog-with-a-bone that I am, I did more research, and hopefully this can put to bed my diversion of the thread (sorry), and maybe help others with a similar use case / workflow objective to mine : Forgejo (official Cloudron AppStore) provides standard git source code functionality AND it has a built-in container registry functionality so no need to consider changes to the official docker registry app for public pulls forgejo supports private and public repos (which git.cloudron.io does not) forgejo supports public image pulls (like hub.docker.com) but also multiple private containers (hub.docker.com only allows 1) I can uninstall docker registry app and gitea/gitlab apps, multiple used for segregating cloudron community work from closed app dev, using Forgejo organization instead. So the answer for my bandwidth-limited brain of 1 app for (almost) everything seems to be Forgejo (available today, no dev work). However, @girish made valuable comment that hosting container images is a disk/network usage risk. Even for a small dev footprint like mine, this could be critical (let alone Cloudron scale). I need to think & test out, but maybe Forgejo actions can automate container push to hub.docker.com, and do automated cleanup in the instance. So from dev point of view it's a single answer (Forgejo) with CI/CD offloading disk/network risks to hub.docker.com (or whatever).

Here is a more complete analysis of the disk I/O across all 3 servers. 1. Cloudron Disk I/O graph (server 1, last 6 hours) [image: 1773182644022-scherm-afbeelding-2026-03-10-om-23.40.17-resized.png] The graph shows a constant write baseline of ~2.5 MB/s, 24/7. The spike around 20:00 is the scheduled daily backup — completely normal. The total write of 646 GB over 2 days (~323 GB/day) is almost entirely this constant baseline, not user traffic or backups. 2. iotop breakdown (server 1, 1 minute measurement) Docker MySQL (messageb): 48.62 MB/min (~0.81 MB/s) Host MySQL: 23.26 MB/min (~0.39 MB/s) go-carbon: 9.34 MB/min (~0.16 MB/s) jbd2 (fs journal): 8.44 MB/min (~0.14 MB/s) systemd-journald: 4.37 MB/min (~0.07 MB/s) containerd: 2.02 MB/min (~0.03 MB/s) dockerd: 1.13 MB/min (~0.02 MB/s) Total: ~97 MB/min (~1.6 MB/s average) Note: the average of ~1.6 MB/s is consistent with the graph baseline of ~2.5 MB/s when accounting for peaks and the fact that iotop measures a 1-minute window. 3. InnoDB write activity since last MySQL restart (all 3 servers) Server 1 (uptime 59 min) Server 2 (uptime ~40h) Server 3 (uptime ~40h) Data written 2.13 GB 55.3 GB 63.5 GB Effective write rate ~0.58 MB/s ~0.38 MB/s ~0.43 MB/s Rows inserted/s 6.5 8.8 8.6 Rows updated/s 7.0 4.5 4.0 Log writes/s 28.7 23.6 18.0 All three servers show a consistent insert rate of ~6-9 rows/second in the Docker MySQL, matching exactly 1 new Matomo session every 10 seconds (= health check interval). Conclusion The Docker MySQL (~0.4-0.8 MB/s) is the largest single contributor, driven primarily by Matomo session inserts. The total observed disk I/O of 2-4 MB/s is the sum of multiple processes, with the constant Matomo session accumulation as the most significant and most easily fixable component.

@archos interesting it knows how to access the old doc to make a new copy. Nice find!

@James @brutalbirdie @Joseph Much appreciated team.

You already got it, but often proxyAuth is the simplest.