What's coming in 6.0 (take 2)

[girish]

@iqweb said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

Re: Volumes - I think this will create a solution for something that I have been trying to resolve - i.e. Nextcloud app backups WITHOUT the data!

Yes, I think this will solve that use case. You mount a volume into nextcloud and configure nextcloud to use it as external storage.

[imc67]

@girish can you also mount an ‘on server’ folder like that?

[girish]

@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.

[scooke]

@ruihildt There is a free tier, and if the "5 Mailboxes" means there is some functional email, then that is not bad.

[ruihildt]

@scooke I'm not sure what you're replying to?

[jdaviescoates]

@girish can't wait to have volumes to play with! what's your guestimate ETA?

[girish]

@jdaviescoates Cloudron 6 is ~2-3 weeks away. The translation project is quite a massive change, so maybe I am being overlay optimistic here.

[jdaviescoates]

@girish all power to your elbow! (i.e. good luck!)

[scooke]

@ruihildt Your comment from 26 days ago, "As an aside, they are advertising Cloudron as free software, which is not correct at the moment." I came across it as I read through the entire thread.

[jdaviescoates]

@scooke said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):

@ruihildt Your comment from 26 days ago, "As an aside, they are advertising Cloudron as free software, which is not correct at the moment." I came across it as I read through the entire thread.

I think you've missed the point

@ruihildt was talking about free as in freedom (which is how that project advertises Cloudron), not free as in price.

[scooke]

@jdaviescoates I figured so. But I wonder why @ruihildt bothered to point out what he did. The few lines I found on the website aren't actually advertising Cloudron as %100 open source, but rather that the code they use is open source. I'd be more bothered by their approach, like Framasoft, where if the user has no idea about the existence of Cloudron, in this case, the company's description of what they do (https://osinum.fr/) makes it sound like it is and has been all their own doing. Much of what they promise to do is based on whether Cloudron, or all the other myriad open source projects in use, has or will implement it, but they don't clearly specify that. If I found them, and started using them, and THEN discovered they actually use Cloudron, I'd be a little miffed, and would just switch over to Cloudron.
Anyway, I have no clue what "being sponsored by Medias-Cite" means, but if the Cloudron team are fine with it, and this "sponsoring" helps move Cloudron forward, great.

(A bit more reading shows that they, osinum.fr, are charging a minimum 150 EURO/month!!! I guess they are paying Cloudron for the Premium Plus plan. They offer, for almost triple the price of Cloudron's pricing,
1 domain name (.fr, .com, .org, .net)
Accommodation in France
Shared server
100 GB
5 applications
50 users
Management of user groups
Daily backups
Surveillance / Monitoring / Security
Email support

Maybe I should get into offering cloudron!!

[girish]

hey guys, let's stick to Cloudron 6 related discussion here Feel free to open new thread for other topics.

[jdaviescoates]

@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.

[scooke]

@jdaviescoates @girish D'accord.

[jdaviescoates]

@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)! )

[imc67]

@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!

[mehdi]

@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

[jdaviescoates]

@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)

[girish]

@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.

[jdaviescoates]

@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?