Cloudron Forum

I am with Vultr and they don't.

And do you have any idea where to sync this to? Would the usual backup provider work such as Backblaze?

Since Cloudron doesn't backup volumes, what is the best solution to handle that? I have about 250 GB (potentially growing) that I would like to have in another location.

I am assuming I would write a script with a cron job to back up regularly to a destination of my choice and have it run independently of Cloudron?

Hmh, this doesn't answer fully my question. So, if I set it to 100%, then it will use all cores, which is actually fine. But is there a security built in that it won't use literally all CPU on the computer? Otherwise, I don't understand why 100% is the default.

The default CPU limit per app is 100% upon installation. However, isn't the point that the default should be less than that so that one app cannot take down the whole server?

Or did I misunderstand something here?

Ah, just found it - apparently, I restrict access to the page in the general settings, and then in the settings of the individual post, I can set access to "public". Then the page itself is still password-protected, but the text is now included into the API call.

I have installed Ghost on Cloudron and I want to fetch the postings via API, so I want to use its management interface, but not actually have the blog on the ghost domain.

Now, according to my reading, I have these options:

• Ignore my request, have public access on ghost and then fetch it via API
• Use the admin API key

Isn't there any solution in between? Something that restricts access on ghost, but allows me to fetch the content via its API?

If we are talking about the business case of this, then I wouldn't think too big - yes, some companies have to follow regulations and would opt for another solution. Sure, that's fine.

The target group would be all kinds of small server owners. I would use it for my private and my small company server where I am, fortunately, not bound by regulations.

I don't know actually who preferably uses Cloudron, whether this is more of a company product or if this is more used by small companies or private individuals.

Regarding the possible markup, I think Cloudron would need to find once a cooperation partner company that could guarantee a good setup. If Cloudron used Backblaze, for example, then I could use them myself. But there are tons of smaller, yet reliable companies that could provide a good solution.

Maybe other users can also weigh in on their needs if someone else reads this?

@humptydumpty said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:

@ekevu123 whether they offer it to current Cloudron customers only or to everyone makes no difference when it comes to what it takes for this idea to come to fruition. Cloudron needs to be able to resolve any issues if they want to advertise it as a reliable backup option and that means full control over the infrastructure. It’s a huge undertaking. Using a whitelabel service has more risks than whatever value you think it’ll add. Read BB’s paper on hard drive stats and you’ll get an idea of how massive this undertaking is if you want to do it well. Even then, you’re bound to run into issues. If you made it this far and have set up Cloudron, connecting your external storage isn’t any harder. You’re asking Cloudron to be a jack of all trades and a master of none.

https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive-test-data

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-q2-2024/

I am sorry, but you are very wrong here. In fact, it makes a huge difference. Here are things you need to implement if you want to offer this service generally, not only to cloudron customers:

• the ability to interface with various data sources
• a user interface for managing this
• a website
• marketing

If I was Cloudron and decided to implement this, I would essentially turn to established providers such as Vultr, Amazon or Digital Ocean and try to get a deal with them. And then this "huge undertaking" wouldn't be so huge anymore:

• Cloudron already needs to ensure that the backup process works
• Cloudron already needs to ensure that the restore process works

The only thing outside of Cloudron's control would be the hardware used. But then again - if I go to services like Backblaze, I don't have control over this either. If I new my backup was stored, for example, on a Digital Ocean object storage hosted in Germany and managed by Cloudron Backup, I would trust it even more.
Also, we have left the age where you need to control your infrastructure yourself, unless you are paranoid. The world has moved on from that. We now know that infrastructure can be managed more effectively by companies specialised on that. You might be the person who has his server at home, @humptydumpty , I am most certainly not.

Now, you could argue that taking the risk of adding hardware infrastructure provided by these companies is just an additional risk for no reason. I would say that is called business: You add a feature that earns the company more money, so you also need to think about how to keep it manageable. But that is a very normal thing to do. I bet Cloudron could get a dedicated account manager if it added potentially numerous clients etc. Also, needless to say that the infrastructure provided by these companies is probably managed even better than Cloudron ever could if they owned the servers (no offense here). That's why I would trust the solution "Cloudron provides an integrated backup with DO/Vultr/Amazon hosted in Europe" even more than as if they advertised it with their own infrastructure.

All in all, the arguments presented in this thread above are all "let's figure out the details" arguments for me instead of points that break the feature.

@simong said in Support for docker compose:

@ekevu123 I would recommend to use dokploy.com if you do not need the additional features of coolify.

I have just tried dokploy and I like it a lot for docker compose setups. It was super simple to use and much easier than dockge or coolify.

I might run potentially one server with cloudron and one with dokploy, so that I can cover all kinds of deployments.

@girish said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:

@ekevu123 maybe I misunderstood then. Isn't that what "Cloudron should offer backups as a provider itself" means? To be a storage company?

edit: maybe you are saying don't be a generic storage provider but just provide a way to store Cloudron backups alone. as in, we could maybe even get into an agreement with some other storage provider and whitelabel it but at the same time provide assurance of being rock solid.

I assume you are imagining this as a separate storage company, which it shouldn't be. I don't think you should provide any offer to non-cloudron users, hence, no separate company structure is needed. This would rather be an add-on, where as a backup provider, I could choose Cloudron. You guys would very literally only need to provide the storage for it as I could manage the backup from cloudron anyway. And one separate interface for emergency access of the backup. That's it. You have backup-restore already, so once you integrate another source, nothing else is needed.

In return, people like me would be willing to pay you more for this (instead of Backblaze in my case, which I am having issues with as well).

So, think this through from the perspective of an integrated and separately paid add-on for users - from the perspective: What would be the easiest solution to the problem "I need a backup for my server" instead of a separate side-business that diverts resources.

I don't think it is that hard either, because I am still convinced it needs more than an a rented drive or object storage with some sort of provider that has the resources anyway.

Well, I was explicitly not suggesting to run a storage company.

But if you don't want to consider it, that's fine for me.

My feature request is that Cloudron should offer backups as a provider itself for an additional fee. Hear me out.

This is why I think it would be a good idea:

• The code is basically already there. Cloudron has backup and restore code and I can manage my backups from the cloudron dashboard. The rest (e.g. encryption algorithm) is open-source.
• Cloudron has the knowledge of how to build secure infrastructure.
• Cloudron could get a good, potentially discounted deal with a white-label infrastructure provider, potentially using the same hardware as one of the bigger names out there, but using much simpler software.
• It would be a great additional add-on for cloudron to upsell existing customers with more value.
• Cloudron Backup would only exist for cloudron users. There is no need to build a website, a UI, or do marketing. Only existing cloudron users can optionally use it. This means the large overhead the other providers have wouldn't exist. Cloudron can turn this into an add-on, this shouldn't be a standalone product (as that has been done before)
• I trust Cloudron already with my server infrastructure, the code could easily be open-sourced as the value is in the infrastructure, not the code, so trust can be built easily.

Here is why I would use Cloudron backup instead of one of the existing providers:

• Some of the existing providers target enterprise clients
• Some are really expensivevalue
• Basically all of them have a shitty UI that I don't really need anyway
• The only thing I really need is lots of affordable GB, and for them to be secure. And perhaps a very simple UI (e.g. like the file manager for volumes) to access the backup from outside of Cloudron. That's basically it, no additional settings needed.

A solution integrated into Cloudron could be easier to set up, more affordable than alternatives and be a good business opportunity to increase the amount of money it makes from existing clients (optionally).

That's why I think Cloudron should consider adding integrated Backups.

Thank you, I will check it out!

As I said, I would mark it accordingly, then it should be fine. I didn't know about the template, I will try to use it next time.

Yes, I like the template, however, I think if someone else's post has been edited by a moderator, this should be very clearly marked.

@girish said in Backup time considers timezones incorrectly:

I think you are suggesting showing the Settings Timezone in the Backup Schedule UI, correct? If so, that's a good idea!

Yes, that was what I was suggesting

The timezone shown in the UI is based on browser timezone . If you had multiple admins, each in their timezones, then the UI shows the correct timestamps.

I understand the logic, however, have a look at the screenshot.

Seemingly, the backup starts at 1am, but it finishes before 1am, which is confusing. In fact, it took 24 minutes in this case, but I am in a different time zone now, 1 hour back.

Yes, it is new, but I suggested it because I found it promising from what I saw. Besides, I'd love to have such a tool on Cloudron.

I am travelling frequently between time zones these days, and I have noticed that there is an issue with the time zone support in the backup settings:

• The Backup schedule takes the time zone from the settings, but the time zone is not shown in the backup menu
• The Backup time in "Listings", though, takes the current time zone of the system (I tried changing the time zone of my laptop and then refreshed the page).

This can lead to inconsistent behaviour where, seemingly, the backup finished before it started.

Proposed solution: Let the user choose one server time zone and then work with this consistently.

I don't know why, but re-building and re-uploading the docker image from scratch has worked without any additional changes.

Since this morning, I can't install my custom app anymore. The logs show that it is constantly "retrying in x seconds" while downloading the image, but it doesn't seem to make any progress. I am using a private docker registry on the same server, which I can access just fine.

Since I don't have anything else to work with except that, there is little more I can tell. What can I do about this?