What's coming in 6.0 (take 2)
-
@nebulon said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
For 1 and 2: Those volumes will be mounted into the apps based on
/media/<volumename>and thus one volume associated with apps will always have the same mountpoint within the apps.For 3: Initially those won't be backed up at all, but we will likely add optional backup per volume as well. The user has to be aware of the fact that volumes are not part of the app backups as such!
That’s the difference to storage mounted in „Resources“ - this will get backed up, correct?
-
The volumes are setup outside of the apps first and are essentially independent. Once you've created a volume you can then mount that into an app via the Storage section in the app configuration. Even if mounted though, it will not be part of the app backup, since the main reason for volumes is to be mounted into multiple apps. For that we have to first figure out how to manage those with regards to backups.
-
@nebulon That makes sense. I’m of the opinion that optional block storage should effectively be backed up at the host level not the application level. In other words, taking a snapshot or something like that which many providers allow even volumes / block storage to be snapshotted. Much like how we need to snapshot our actual VPS on occasion too for a backup strategy of the entire server.
-
@nebulon said in What's coming in 6.0 (take 2):
The volumes are setup outside of the apps first and are essentially independent. Once you've created a volume you can then mount that into an app via the Storage section in the app configuration. Even if mounted though, it will not be part of the app backup, since the main reason for volumes is to be mounted into multiple apps. For that we have to first figure out how to manage those with regards to backups.
No, I mean external volumes that you can currently already move the data dir to under „Resources“ in the app settings - this gets backed up, correct?
(
-
-
@MooCloud_Matt this is only true if you use dumb S3 connectors that treat it like a filesystem instead of an object store.
It's a very different experience when things are treated properly as objects.
-
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!
I want to be able to back up the app via Cloudron natively - but backup the data via borg/restic/kopia or the like. This looks like it could resolve this issue if the data was an attached volume. Very much looking forward to this feature if it's like that.
-
@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 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.
-
@jdaviescoates Cloudron 6 is ~2-3 weeks away. The translation project is quite a massive change, so maybe I am being overlay optimistic here.
-
-
@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.
-
@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 supportMaybe I should get into offering cloudron!!
-
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.
what's your guestimate ETA?
