Why does this app need Container station ? Is this just a app which starts a container?
yes - it wraps and manages the container.
Could you elaborate on why this approach was chosen over just using the binaries?
The docker tooling is well supported by the Storj team, which allowed us to focus on a layer of abstraction between the underlying node binaries and the End-User. In cases where the OEM ecosystem supports docker we made use of it - where it’s not available(FreeNAS, for example) we use the binaries.
This is the first version of the app - we will likely extend support based on community feedback.
What model of QNAP do you have that does not support container station?
1 Like
@howardsh - there is still a big in the port forwarding logic. The latest version works with the default port. The next release will support custom ports.
Looking my container terminal I see this error:
ERROR Invalid configuration: invalid contact.external-address: split host-port “28967” failed: address 28967:
missing port in address
Error: invalid contact.external-address: split host-port “28967” failed: address 28967: missing port in address
I don’t personally have a QNAP. I actually run my node on Docker on Synology. I was just curious what was behind this decision as it seems to add an abstraction layer that isn’t a necessity anymore if you’re designing a wrapper.
In my opinion Docker does introduce an additional point of failure. There are several issues users run in to purely because Docker is used. Additionally as you already mentioned there are NAS models that don’t support Docker at all made by all major brands. It also requires the end user to install dependencies.
Additionally Storj uses a phased rollout on windows. This is currently not really possible on Docker setups and could be another reason to use binaries over a Docker based wrapper.
I’m sure it would add some complexity to the packages though. And I’m no doubt overlooking other things as well, which is why I asked the open question to begin with.
2 Likes
@BrightSilence - I agree with many of your points. Can you share some of the issues related to Docker that you’ve seen users run in to?
As an aside, our Synology App also wraps the docker image.
I’m sure it won’t be an exhaustive list, but there have been issues where nodes don’t work anymore after docker updates, storagenode image updates. Issues with docker mounts or volumes not being available at launch. Docker logs filling up system volumes. Stopping docker containers causing corruption to databases. Watchtower spawning ghost images of itself. In some cases hundreds of them. Watchtower not performing updates as expected. It sometimes just stops working without notice.
In general I’m just not a fan of added complexity where it’s not needed. Every element you add is an element that can break. Although I have to admit I’ve had few of the issues I mentioned, I’ve read the forum and rocket chat prior to that long enough to know that they are unfortunately a lot more common that we would want. Early on the promise was always that docker was a temporary solution to ease the early development and short release cycle. I definitely sympathize with that and I think it was the right choice at the time. But as the software matures I think it would be best to avoid it where possible. Moving away from Docker on windows for example has solved a great many problems for windows nodes and made them a lot more stable.
Feel free to also search the forum for more docker related issues. I’m sure I’ve missed a few.
As for the Synology app, I figured from context that it would be based on the docker image as well. I’m a little hesitant to switch to that with my main node as it’s working fine as it is right now and the upside of the package seems limited given that it still relies on docker anyway. Though I’d be happy to give it a try on a second node. I have a 2TB HDD laying around catching dust anyway, so I could use that to give it a try, assuming using the Synology app won’t interfere with my existing setup (storagenode + watchtower).
1 Like
@brizio71- updated build in OP.
1 Like
same problem with new release too
what value are you entering for the port forwarding field?
I use 28967 as I do on docker
make sure to include your external(public) IP as well. The entry should be in the format:
<host>:28967
or
<Public IP>:28967
Hi @utropicmedia-karl, thanks for help, I put my node online successfully.
but I still have a question about the dashboard, why my disk usage shows 0
and my NAS console INFO shows that upload start and upload canceled constantly.
Did I do something wrong on my NAS?
Thanks
1 Like
@howardsh - a few questions:
- what is the node version it’s showing? (top of dashboard)
- please verify the storage directory path. (can you share?)
node version v1.0.1
my storage directory path: /share/storj
(I created a directory under my static volume)
I had the exact same issue. I think it just calculates it once a day, because it showed up just fine the next morning.
1 Like
Yes, I just checked the node and it shows fine.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
FYI - Just updated the build to fix a big with auto-updating.