Portainer: Much Ado About Nothing

    • OMV 5.x (beta)

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • ryecoaaron wrote:

      TechnoDadLife wrote:

      What program needs port 9000?
      Squeezebox I guess.
      Maybe whenever there is a new install, create a script that they can use to let @ryecoaaron SSH their server, and do everything for them... That would be simple and I hear he has way to much free time anyway... :)

      My personal opinion... He's done as much as can be reasonably expected with docker related containers. You can install docker with one click, install one of the two more popular gui's for docker with one click... it's hard to ask for much more and not be a bit unreasonable

      I'd leave it alone. If they want to change portainer from 9000 to whatever, they can post and ask how. I'm assuming the easiest thing to do would probably be to create a new portainer container, and set the ports as you desire... Once it's done configuring.. log out of the "old" portainer on 9000, and into the new one on whatever port... Then delete the container using 9000.

      I still like that ssh idea though...
      Air Conditioners are a lot like PC's... They work great until you open Windows.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by KM0201 ().

    • Install Portainer from the command line if the external port requires changing from :9000, Portainers internal port is bound to the container and cannot be changed.

      A simple how to on how to install Portainer from the cli, with a warning or reference on the GUI that Portainer uses port :9000 with a direction to the how to.

      Personally @ryecoaaron has done an excellent job in making this as easy as possible, changing what already works just for one container makes no sense.
      Raid is not a backup! Would you go skydiving without a parachute?
    • Portainer: Much Ado About Nothing

      As I can see the port of SqueezeboxServer can also changed too. So it would be better to adopt the needed containers and not portainer


      Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
      OMV-Server-HW: MoBo Fujitsu D3417-B2 (Intel-LAN), Intel Xeon E3-1245 v6 Kaby Lake (4x3.70GHz), 16GB-Ram ECC UDIMM, 1x512GB SSD Samsung 850 Pro (sda2 - 30GB system, 4GB swap, sda5/rest - for work), 1x 10TB WD Red Pro, 1x 3TB WD Red (both basic setup) - Digibit R1 Sat-IP-Server with SatIP-Axe-Firmware

      OMV-Server-SW: Debian Stretch with backports-Kernel (always up-to-date), OMV v4 (always latest), omv-extras-plugin (always latests), AutoShutdown-Plugin, Virtualbox (with DSM 6.2.x), Docker with PlexMediaServer, TVHeadendServer (unstable release)

      BackupServer: Synology DS1010+ with 4GB Ram, 9TB@SHR (different hdd's), DSM 5.2-5967-2
    • ness1602 wrote:

      Portainer is container as well as any other. So you could change its port to whaterever you like. I think that is an okay option.
      The problem is that every time someone clicks the install portainer button in omv-extras, it will reset it back to 9000. And the idea of that button is that people could use it to update the portainer image to latest as well.
      omv 5.0.14 usul | 64 bit | 5.0 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 5.1.4
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github

      Please read this before posting a question and this and this for docker questions.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • ness1602 wrote:

      Can you make it take some parameters from page when creating portainer?
      Of course but as I posted on the last page, I really was hoping for simplicity to prevent problems.
      omv 5.0.14 usul | 64 bit | 5.0 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 5.1.4
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github

      Please read this before posting a question and this and this for docker questions.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • I'd vote for leaving portainer as it is. It's not realistic for users to expect portainer to be 100%, "out of the box", compatible with *ALL* Docker images/containers that currently exist, or those yet to be created.

      In a similar manner, I wouldn't expect Volker to change OMV's Web GUI ports from 80 and 443, to accommodate some add-on that I like. (In fact, port conflicts such as this are an excellent reason to use a MacVLan interface, in Docker.)
    • crashtest wrote:

      I wouldn't expect Volker to change OMV's Web GUI ports from 80 and 443
      You can change the ports for both of those in the web interface though. I guess if it is *just* the 9000 port and no other setting, it won't be bad to add.
      omv 5.0.14 usul | 64 bit | 5.0 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 5.1.4
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github

      Please read this before posting a question and this and this for docker questions.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • ryecoaaron wrote:

      I guess if it is *just* the 9000 port and no other setting, it won't be bad to add.
      I don't know. In that Docker has been designed around remapping ports, as part of what it does, the issue seems almost trivial to me. I think you've already went out of your way in expanding what OMV-Extras does, in prep for OMV5.

      But since you're the Big Kahuna Coding Maestro :D , I wouldn't even think of trying to stand in the way. :)
    • Come back to the problem of Squeezebox. Squeezebox needs internal (inside docker) the 9000 port and portainer too.
      Could it be a problem of installing both even you change their external ports? How should docker know to which container the connection should go. For me it looks like that both programs are listing at the same port. How should that work?

      Am I right or do I think completely wrong?
      OMV-Server-HW: MoBo Fujitsu D3417-B2 (Intel-LAN), Intel Xeon E3-1245 v6 Kaby Lake (4x3.70GHz), 16GB-Ram ECC UDIMM, 1x512GB SSD Samsung 850 Pro (sda2 - 30GB system, 4GB swap, sda5/rest - for work), 1x 10TB WD Red Pro, 1x 3TB WD Red (both basic setup) - Digibit R1 Sat-IP-Server with SatIP-Axe-Firmware

      OMV-Server-SW: Debian Stretch with backports-Kernel (always up-to-date), OMV v4 (always latest), omv-extras-plugin (always latests), AutoShutdown-Plugin, Virtualbox (with DSM 6.2.x), Docker with PlexMediaServer, TVHeadendServer (unstable release)

      BackupServer: Synology DS1010+ with 4GB Ram, 9TB@SHR (different hdd's), DSM 5.2-5967-2
    • If the internal ports are the same but the external ports are different, there are no problems.
      omv 5.0.14 usul | 64 bit | 5.0 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 5.1.4
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github

      Please read this before posting a question and this and this for docker questions.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • I think that the Docker platform should regulate the issue of ports and that Squeezebox should change the ones it is using because Portainer, although it is a container itself, is the "host" of many applications. I do not think it is OMV's task to solve a problem that is clearly Docker as an application platform.
      That is just my opinion. Regards.
    • I do understand the argument of keeping everything as simple as possible.
      And i know that if you change one thing now someone else will ask you another thing that needs changing.

      I've looked at the squeezebox forums and found an solution that workt for me, so thank you for even considering my question and for all the working you guys do
    • crashtest wrote:

      In fact, port conflicts such as this are an excellent reason to use a MacVLan interface, in Docker.
      Funny you mention this, I run most of my containers using the MacVLan interface for exactly that reason and because it gives all those containers nice, individual (and fixed) IP addresses. I've been trying for some time already to get Portainer to us the MacVLan interface as well, but so far without success.
    • apveening wrote:

      I've been trying for some time already to get Portainer to us the MacVLan interface as well, but so far without success.
      This is something I'm interested in for the stated reason - MacVlan int's can solve issues where a Docker may need exclusive access to well known ports and, in some cases (as you noted), is actually desirable and convenient for other reasons. I need to set up OMV5, on actual X86 hardware, to take a look.