For me, Storj has so far run through Docker. But I would like to install a second node on a second volume and run it on the second lan access and a changed port.
I have now seen the app for Synology and would like to use it for the second node. Do problems arise from this combination of docker (existing node) and app?
Is that possible or will I damage my previous node?
I’m in the same boat. Would like to try the app on an external hdd, but want to make sure it won’t mess with the existing node.
Because I was curious and wanted to try it out, I installed the app. As described elsewhere, there is probably still a problem with the dyndns:port. So I uninstalled the app. Unfortunately, the already running version of Storj disappears from Docker. Not to be used like this.
Ouch… it really shouldn’t be using the standard container names. This is bound to cause issues for more people. I guess I won’t be testing this app after all. I’m not going to mess with a node that has been running stable for over a year.
sudo docker pull storjlabs/storagenode:beta Has reinstated the old state It’s back on now. Scared me too.
i thought the whole idea with docker is that one simply adds another image and instead run it as a docker container storagenode2 with different configurations…
but to be fair… no clue… and not sure if that solves the problem for you guys…
Same image, different container. But yes, that’s how it should work. But if the Synology app uses the same container name it will overwrite the existing container. You can obviously work around that by running the original docker node with a different container name. But I just don’t really feel like messing with my setup. Especially since the app seems to have other issues as well.
At this point I would feel more comfortable simply running a separate node from docker myself. But I wanted to also test this app. I’ll wait for a bit and see how this develops. It may run into similar issues with watchtower that could make it harder to run multiple nodes. I think this app is just not really meant to be used in conjunction with other nodes on the same machine. I really wish they would have just gone with a binary install instead and skipped over using docker altogether.
yeah, i saw some people using QNAP was using iSCSI and then hosting the software on a separate system, that is always a temporary and safer option, i assume Synology can run iSCSI just fine… tho one needs to take care in getting the ISCSI configurations right for it be run nice and maybe have some soft of failsafe so the system will shut down if the connection is broken before to much damage is done, if storj cannot figure out it lost the connection to the drive…
quickly becomes many failure points tho…