Cloudron makes it easy to run web apps like WordPress, Nextcloud, GitLab on your server. Find out more or install now.


Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Bookmarks
  • Search
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

Cloudron Forum

Apps | Demo | Docs | Install
  1. Cloudron Forum
  2. Nextcloud
  3. Has anyone set up Nextcloud with a Hetzner Storagebox cifs mount as primary storage?

Has anyone set up Nextcloud with a Hetzner Storagebox cifs mount as primary storage?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Nextcloud
nextcloudcifsstorageboxhetzner
30 Posts 11 Posters 13.0k Views 13 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • andreasduerenA andreasdueren

    @andreasdueren Screenshot 2022-01-29 at 08.43.48.png It won't show it as a proper volume either.

    Plus for some reason my internal volume is now almost completely full with mystery data.

    Screenshot 2022-01-29 at 08.42.43.png

    M Offline
    M Offline
    msbt
    App Dev
    wrote on last edited by
    #21

    @andreasdueren I've mounted it via volumes after getting rid of fstab

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • marcusquinnM Offline
      marcusquinnM Offline
      marcusquinn
      wrote on last edited by
      #22

      It looks like Hetzner are now pretty-much doing this exact same thing for their "Storage Share" solution:

      • https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-share

      @girish I think this needs to be a core feature of Cloudron, given the cost-efficiency, scaleability, and additional backup snapshots this offers for very little €s compared to things like GDrive & Dropbox per-user pricing.

      Web Design https://www.evergreen.je
      Development https://brandlight.org
      Life https://marcusquinn.com

      MooCloud_MattM 1 Reply Last reply
      3
      • M msbt

        Ok so quick update here: I was following the mount procedure from the first link and it's looking good! However, I started with a fresh installation instead of moving my files around, but seeing as it worked out, migrating an existing installation should be no problem either.

        So what I did:

        • deployed a new Cloudron with Nextcloud installed on a fresh CPX21 on Hetzner Cloud (kept it at 40GB though, might scale down if performance allows it)
        • mounted a 5TB Hetzner Storagebox via sshfs into /mnt/cloud and added it as Cloudron volume (/media/cloud)
        • mounted that volume into the Nextcloud app (uncheck read-only)
        • change the datadirectory in config/config.php from 'datadirectory' => '/app/data', to 'datadirectory' => '/media/cloud',
        • cp -r /app/data/admin to the mounted volume and touch .ocdata in /media/cloud

        That's pretty much it I reckon, if you log in now you have this extra storage available:
        13da2c2f-cb18-48c9-b90c-950c44bf2770-grafik.png

        I have both, uploaded a few GB manually and the rest via sync client, no errors so far. A restart won't change the datadirectory, so this should continue working after reboots. Encryption is also enabled and working as intended, still waiting for something that doesn't work properly.

        jcgonnardJ Offline
        jcgonnardJ Offline
        jcgonnard
        wrote on last edited by jcgonnard
        #23

        @msbt
        Hi

        I got a similar configuration with a CPX21 instance connected to a BX21 Storagebox.
        While transfer speed for large files is fine, transfer speed for large amount of small files is horrible:

        root@nextcloud:~# for f in {1..2000}; do mktemp ; done 
        /tmp/tmp.qabMyUDO5N
        /tmp/tmp.QPuk8CcXSB
        /tmp/tmp.NhErmerWFl
        /tmp/tmp.CtkY3jvTbL
        [...]
        
        root@nextcloud:~# time cp /tmp/tmp.* /backups/test/
        real	4m20.998s
        user	0m0.061s
        sys	0m0.565s
        
        root@nextcloud:~# time rm -fr /backups/test/*
        real	1m36.682s
        user	0m0.050s
        sys	0m0.196s
        

        Are you experiencing the same behaviour ?

        robiR jcgonnardJ M 3 Replies Last reply
        1
        • jcgonnardJ jcgonnard

          @msbt
          Hi

          I got a similar configuration with a CPX21 instance connected to a BX21 Storagebox.
          While transfer speed for large files is fine, transfer speed for large amount of small files is horrible:

          root@nextcloud:~# for f in {1..2000}; do mktemp ; done 
          /tmp/tmp.qabMyUDO5N
          /tmp/tmp.QPuk8CcXSB
          /tmp/tmp.NhErmerWFl
          /tmp/tmp.CtkY3jvTbL
          [...]
          
          root@nextcloud:~# time cp /tmp/tmp.* /backups/test/
          real	4m20.998s
          user	0m0.061s
          sys	0m0.565s
          
          root@nextcloud:~# time rm -fr /backups/test/*
          real	1m36.682s
          user	0m0.050s
          sys	0m0.196s
          

          Are you experiencing the same behaviour ?

          robiR Offline
          robiR Offline
          robi
          wrote on last edited by
          #24

          @jcgonnard many factors influence the availability of IO on the system.

          Shared systems get busy.

          See what is available with dd:
          dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test1.img bs=1G count=1 oflag=dsync ; rm /tmp/test1.img

          Conscious tech

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • jcgonnardJ jcgonnard

            @msbt
            Hi

            I got a similar configuration with a CPX21 instance connected to a BX21 Storagebox.
            While transfer speed for large files is fine, transfer speed for large amount of small files is horrible:

            root@nextcloud:~# for f in {1..2000}; do mktemp ; done 
            /tmp/tmp.qabMyUDO5N
            /tmp/tmp.QPuk8CcXSB
            /tmp/tmp.NhErmerWFl
            /tmp/tmp.CtkY3jvTbL
            [...]
            
            root@nextcloud:~# time cp /tmp/tmp.* /backups/test/
            real	4m20.998s
            user	0m0.061s
            sys	0m0.565s
            
            root@nextcloud:~# time rm -fr /backups/test/*
            real	1m36.682s
            user	0m0.050s
            sys	0m0.196s
            

            Are you experiencing the same behaviour ?

            jcgonnardJ Offline
            jcgonnardJ Offline
            jcgonnard
            wrote on last edited by
            #25

            @jcgonnard

            SSHFS:

            root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/backups/test.img bs=1G count=1 oflag=dsync
            1+0 records in
            1+0 records out
            1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 50.1201 s, 21.4 MB/s
            root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/backups/test.img bs=4M count=250 oflag=dsync
            250+0 records in
            250+0 records out
            1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB, 1000 MiB) copied, 78.6863 s, 13.3 MB/s
            root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/backups/test.img bs=1 count=1000 oflag=dsync
            1000+0 records in
            1000+0 records out
            1000 bytes (1.0 kB) copied, 70.862 s, 0.0 kB/s
            

            LOCAL:

            root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test.img bs=1G count=1 oflag=dsync
            1+0 records in
            1+0 records out
            1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 0.863714 s, 1.2 GB/s
            root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test.img bs=4M count=250 oflag=dsync
            250+0 records in
            250+0 records out
            1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB, 1000 MiB) copied, 1.31499 s, 797 MB/s
            root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test.img bs=1 count=1000 oflag=dsync
            1000+0 records in
            1000+0 records out
            1000 bytes (1.0 kB) copied, 0.500667 s, 2.0 kB/s
            

            As I said, transfer speed for medium/big files is fine enough, the problem is for small files.
            I just asked if some of you experienced the same issue with the same configuration (hetzner VM + storagebox) and if there is a way to improve performances or if I need to find something else that would match my needs

            robiR 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • jcgonnardJ jcgonnard

              @jcgonnard

              SSHFS:

              root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/backups/test.img bs=1G count=1 oflag=dsync
              1+0 records in
              1+0 records out
              1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 50.1201 s, 21.4 MB/s
              root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/backups/test.img bs=4M count=250 oflag=dsync
              250+0 records in
              250+0 records out
              1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB, 1000 MiB) copied, 78.6863 s, 13.3 MB/s
              root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/backups/test.img bs=1 count=1000 oflag=dsync
              1000+0 records in
              1000+0 records out
              1000 bytes (1.0 kB) copied, 70.862 s, 0.0 kB/s
              

              LOCAL:

              root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test.img bs=1G count=1 oflag=dsync
              1+0 records in
              1+0 records out
              1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 0.863714 s, 1.2 GB/s
              root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test.img bs=4M count=250 oflag=dsync
              250+0 records in
              250+0 records out
              1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB, 1000 MiB) copied, 1.31499 s, 797 MB/s
              root@nextcloud:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test.img bs=1 count=1000 oflag=dsync
              1000+0 records in
              1000+0 records out
              1000 bytes (1.0 kB) copied, 0.500667 s, 2.0 kB/s
              

              As I said, transfer speed for medium/big files is fine enough, the problem is for small files.
              I just asked if some of you experienced the same issue with the same configuration (hetzner VM + storagebox) and if there is a way to improve performances or if I need to find something else that would match my needs

              robiR Offline
              robiR Offline
              robi
              wrote on last edited by
              #26

              @jcgonnard that is pretty good performance for SSHFS.

              You'll have to switch to a different mount option to increase small file performance, unless you can get all your small files to stream over via tar/zip/etc.

              Conscious tech

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • marcusquinnM marcusquinn

                It looks like Hetzner are now pretty-much doing this exact same thing for their "Storage Share" solution:

                • https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-share

                @girish I think this needs to be a core feature of Cloudron, given the cost-efficiency, scaleability, and additional backup snapshots this offers for very little €s compared to things like GDrive & Dropbox per-user pricing.

                MooCloud_MattM Offline
                MooCloud_MattM Offline
                MooCloud_Matt
                wrote on last edited by MooCloud_Matt
                #27

                @marcusquinn
                Hetzner don't use remote storage use remote clustered DB + local storage.
                So it's not possible to compare the 2 installs cloudron + storagebox and hetzner storageshare, performance will be a lot better on storageshare, in order of magnitude especially on small files.

                Matteo. R.
                Founder and Tech-Support Manager.
                MooCloud MSP
                Swiss Managed Service Provider

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • jcgonnardJ jcgonnard

                  @msbt
                  Hi

                  I got a similar configuration with a CPX21 instance connected to a BX21 Storagebox.
                  While transfer speed for large files is fine, transfer speed for large amount of small files is horrible:

                  root@nextcloud:~# for f in {1..2000}; do mktemp ; done 
                  /tmp/tmp.qabMyUDO5N
                  /tmp/tmp.QPuk8CcXSB
                  /tmp/tmp.NhErmerWFl
                  /tmp/tmp.CtkY3jvTbL
                  [...]
                  
                  root@nextcloud:~# time cp /tmp/tmp.* /backups/test/
                  real	4m20.998s
                  user	0m0.061s
                  sys	0m0.565s
                  
                  root@nextcloud:~# time rm -fr /backups/test/*
                  real	1m36.682s
                  user	0m0.050s
                  sys	0m0.196s
                  

                  Are you experiencing the same behaviour ?

                  M Offline
                  M Offline
                  msbt
                  App Dev
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #28

                  @jcgonnard I can't really tell, it's always running in the background and I haven't encountered any issues so far

                  MooCloud_MattM 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • M msbt

                    @jcgonnard I can't really tell, it's always running in the background and I haven't encountered any issues so far

                    MooCloud_MattM Offline
                    MooCloud_MattM Offline
                    MooCloud_Matt
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #29

                    @msbt
                    the issue could start with a lot of concurrent users and a lot of small changes to file, due to SMB not working at FS lvl but at file level/block of data.
                    IF hetzner would offer NFS, that could be a solution or better even if there would be support for iscsi.

                    Matteo. R.
                    Founder and Tech-Support Manager.
                    MooCloud MSP
                    Swiss Managed Service Provider

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • marcusquinnM marcusquinn referenced this topic on
                    • JOduMonTJ Offline
                      JOduMonTJ Offline
                      JOduMonT
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #30

                      I would recommend you to use WebDAV instead of CIFS
                      it will be faster as WebDAV is more modern and appropriate for extended network (non LAN).

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Bookmarks
                      • Search