Topics created by d19dotca

@girish wait... is that correct? I get a 404 on that link.

@nebulon For sure, yeah I figured it may need more interest before it's implemented, and realistically I'm probably the only Cloudron user who's hosting on LunaNode (though I'd love to know if others are too), as I think LunaNode is a nice hidden gem that's not overly used yet and I switched to them recently as I had heard great things and their pricing is pretty good. Brief recommendation at the bottom for anyone interested. I'll let them know too about Cloudron in case they can do anything to help out too. On the topic of DNS at LunaNode though... it seems pretty awesome from what I can tell, as it has integrated load balancing and failover which is perfect and works with their included monitoring feature too (which is like Uptime Robot but provided by LunaNode), and so if my monitor fails and I have a second DNS entry, it'll automatically remove the failed one from the DNS records temporarily until it's back online, giving only the backup DNS entry for the "hot standby" server. Hoping to take advantage of those features in the not too distant future if it's feasible for me to run a second "hot standby" server. Waiting on Cloudron to add in some functionality to clustering which I think is coming in v6. Once that's there, I hope to be able to do that. Nudge nudge. haha. Brief recommendation based on my initial tests so far for other Cloudron users who want a good inexpensive hosting provider: I recently moved my Cloudron server from OVH to LunaNode to test out their performance, and the exact same Cloudron server in OVH used to take 10 minutes to fully come online after a reboot in OVH, and having restored that same server in LunaNode it now takes only 2-3 minutes to fully come online. That's also with some memory-intensive applications like Mastodon and NodeBB (which are always the last two to start in my environment given their resource usage). Same 8 GB nodes between OVH and LunaNode too. This performance improvement now cuts my downtime after reboots for security updates by almost 75%! That's my brief recommendation for LunaNode. haha.

@jdaviescoates @girish - I think one way may be to add a flag to each application on the appropriate tab where it shows the SFTP credentials, and have it list all users with access to it with a spot to add users too (and to clarify, I mean specifically for SFTP access, not just the users who have app access). So it'd be say only "admin" role by default for SFTP access, for example, plus any Cloudron users which are added by an admin as having SFTP access. That way I can have one freelance developer have access to the one project they need, without giving them access to anything else. Would the above be doable perhaps?

@d19dotca So far things seem to be fine, didn't get the issue yesterday at all, and so far nothing today neither.

The order in that specific case was apparently a bit random based on the result of the network queries we performed in parallel before. I've put a fix to now always sort by fqdn to fix this.

@girish I don’t know if that’s really accurate. I say that only because according to the WordPress server status page, it shows my memory set at 256M, but I don’t have that set anywhere in any files. And when I assumed it was matching the memory assigned to the whole app deployment, it was not excuse when it set it to 1 GB as a test, it still showed 256M.

Indeed, there was a missing normalization. I have fixed it for the next release.

@girish A fresh install already has it set to "No"? Interesting, I don't recall ever setting mine to "Yes", but I guess I did. Thank you for confirming, seems it's okay then if it's set to "No" by default and the cronjob is doing it automatically.

Quick update: I just manually ran another system-wide backup and it was successful, so it seems it may have just been a one-off and probably won't happen again anytime soon, was likely just coincidental I was making a bunch of changes to it yesterday considering other system backups proceeded without issue since the time I made those changes. But I'd love to get a second-set of eyes for insight into if this is something I should fix to prevent it in the future or just a one-off type of thing that can safely be ignored.

@nebulon Will do. I've checked today and see the sync tokens grew a fair bit again, although right now performance seems to still be okay. So I'll monitor a bit over the next week before filing a ticket just in case it grows back to where it was but still syncs quickly, as that may indicate something related but different as a root cause.

@girish That's perfect, thank you so much!

@girish Having this optional would definitely be great, as I see it taking up memory (albeit maybe not too much), and it's 100% unnecessary in my case - I'd love the ability to disable it system-wide.

@girish Ah interesting, yes that definitely seems like an OVH-specific issue then. At least they're heading in the right direction I guess towards the end of this year. Thanks for shedding some light on that one for me.

@girish Good to know. That option being configurable in the future would be great too, rather than just increasing it in code.

@d19dotca Indeed. I have reverted the changes and pushed a new package.

@Mallewax I think this depends on the webmail app, more than on the platform itself. Not totally sure though, I am not particularly familiar with the inner workings of the email protocols

@YurkshireLad USD15 = CAD21

@d19dotca Just wanted to leave a note that there are some discrepancies in code. I will get it sorted out and give a concrete reply - https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/box/-/issues/692

@girish yes, that’s a much better idea. Essentially the ability to “swap” app instances, or in other words the ability to easily promote from staging app instance to production app instance on the same server. That’d be ideal.

@nebulon Oh! That's awesome, thank you for being patient and clarifying that for me. I appreciate it. So I see that now, it looks like if I'm reading it right it will only run that part to deploy the plugins if that directory does not already exist, and since it will exist of course then it would never be executed. Makes sense. Thanks again! This definitely helps, I appreciate the education on it too.