Docker GUI plugin now stable

Quote from subzero79

Portainer needs only two binds mounts, one for accessing the Unix socket and another one for making the settings persistent( the admin password). A guide should be enough, we shouldn’t need a plugin for making run a container, maybe omvextras to enable docker apt repo. The original version of the plugin worked like that. Iframe plug-ins are so omv1

Those 2 instructions IMO dont need a guide, or at most include those on a general docker guide, but i totally agree, now that we can install dockers we shouldnt need most (if any) plugins anymore...

Quote from subzero79

Portainer needs only two binds mounts, one for accessing the Unix socket and another one for making the settings persistent( the admin password). A guide should be enough, we shouldn’t need a plugin for making run a container, maybe omvextras to enable docker apt repo. The original version of the plugin worked like that. Iframe plug-ins are so omv1

sorry, but i'm playing last weeks with portainer, and there are things that i can do with it (s useful to monitor existing containers) but i can't create new containers.

For example, I can't create a macVlan from portainer webGUI (need to do from CLI).
eG: I can't run pihole image or airsonic image ( i do not know how to create volumes for /config or other needs).

Portainer WEBGUI only permit preconfigured volumes, and when go to volumes I do not know hot to create one for /media etc..

Perhaps if portainer is the goal for 5.0 series, someone need to start to use and post some guides like ones exist for actual docker GUI that is really usable and easy to understand.

Quote from raulfg3

sorry, but i'm playing last weeks with portainer, and there are things that i can do with it (s useful to monitor existing containers) but i can't create new containers.
For example, I can't create a macVlan from portainer webGUI (need to do from CLI).
eG: I can't run pihole image or airsonic image ( i do not know how to create volumes for /config or other needs).

Portainer WEBGUI only permit preconfigured volumes, and when go to volumes I do not know hot to create one for /media etc..

Perhaps if portainer is the goal for 5.0 series, someone need to start to use and post some guides like ones exist for actual docker GUI that is really usable and easy to understand.

what? I think you need to do it again, or pull the latest or if you want develop. All those features you mentioned are there, been there for a long time...pretty sure. The ability to update the image and “modify” containers is on develop tag.
There is no goal for 5 series, portainer is a web app that anyone that uses docker can use, it has 20 times more features than the plugin, is actively maintained and is fast.
They have a readthedocs web wiki.

As for volumes, yes the browse folder (host side) will be lost, don’t think that’s terrible, and not a good reason to keep maintaining the plugin.

In my opinion the docker plugin should get integrated to omv with official support. The docker function is one of the key features of my and maybe others omv instance/s.

Docker brings all the features of plugins a lot of us miss. Users do not want to install things by command line, even if this is the great benefit of the Debian OS base. I understand the problem with rare developer capacities. But docker is the feature which makes omv nearly complete.

[OFFTOPIC]Other things I miss are full support for zfs, kvm and lxc/lxd.[/OFFTOPIC]

Just my opinion.

Regards Hoppel

Quote from hoppel118

In my opinion the docker plugin should get integrated to omv

It is integrated. Being a plugin doesn't make it any less integrated. I also am quite sure Volker would not want to maintain it.

Quote from hoppel118

with official support

Why? It is just a frontend for docker which is maintained. And portainer is a better frontend that has substantially better maintenance and support.

Quote from hoppel118

The docker function is one of the key features of my and maybe others omv instance/s.

You wouldn't lose docker. Since docker has become so important (I push it a lot), I could just add a button to omv to install docker and portainer. Then everything else would be done from the excellent portainer web interface.

Quote from hoppel118

Docker brings all the features of plugins a lot of us miss. Users do not want to install things by command line, even if this is the great benefit of the Debian OS base.

As above, you wouldn't lose docker and wouldn't have to do things using the command line.

Quote from hoppel118

I understand the problem with rare developer capacities.

Using portainer would free up time for other purposes.

Quote from hoppel118

Other things I miss are full support for zfs, kvm and lxc/lxd.

We don't have full support for zfs?? Sounds like you really want proxmox + docker + portainer with OMV in a VM. https://www.servethehome.com/c…tup-with-management-guis/

Quote from ryecoaaron

Why? It is just a frontend for docker which is maintained. And portainer is a better frontend that has substantially better maintenance and support.

You wouldn't lose docker. Since docker has become so important (I push it a lot), I could just add a button to omv to install docker and portainer. Then everything else would be done from the excellent portainer web interface.

OR, just a suggestion, think about it, why not install both docker and portainer together and instead of a propietary frontend you use the portainer API to control some functions on the omv interface and a button to portainer itself for complex actions, here is a link to the API and some examples, i mean, doing this the work on the docker frontend on omv gets reduced AND the user also have the option to use portainer standalone, scary users that stay away from CLI: win, developers get less job in the future: win, OMV gets more functions: win, its a win-win-win situation (heck, im pretty sure that there are a lot of advanced users that also use portainer, its so comfy, another win there)
Im not sure who is responsable for maintaining the docker plugin and/or the frontend or if there are 2 different devs but maybe they can consider this idea...

I've trried Portainer today, but it's a lot mor diffilcult for beginners than the omv plugin. The intergration with omv is better with the plugin. Dialogs for volumes slect is very nice to have. With Portainer, you must take more steps to get the same result.

Quote from Trash_Can_Man

OR, just a suggestion, think about it, why not install both docker and portainer together and instead of a propietary frontend you use the portainer API to control some functions on the omv interface and a button to portainer itself for complex actions, here is a link to the API and some examples, i mean, doing this the work on the docker frontend on omv gets reduced AND the user also have the option to use portainer standalone, scary users that stay away from CLI: win, developers get less job in the future: win, OMV gets more functions: win, its a win-win-win situation (heck, im pretty sure that there are a lot of advanced users that also use portainer, its so comfy, another win there)Im not sure who is responsable for maintaining the docker plugin and/or the frontend or if there are 2 different devs but maybe they can consider this idea...

and who maintains-port this ? Unless someone wants to come forward and take over I see no reason to keep it. People keep asking for features for the plugin that portainer has and more stuff that is km’s ahead.

The plugin as it is needs to be slightly ported to current omv5 status, this might change if omv changes internal backend functionality during future course of development.

If this porting happens with no difficulty we can keep the plugin for omv5 but will close issues in github, left it as it is as legacy.

@nicjo814 what do you think about te future of the plugin.

Quote from subzero79

and who maintains-port this ? Unless someone wants to come forward and take over I see no reason to keep it. People keep asking for features for the plugin that portainer has and more stuff that is km’s ahead.
The plugin as it is needs to be slightly ported to current omv5 status, this might change if omv changes internal backend functionality during future course of development.

If this porting happens with no difficulty we can keep the plugin for omv5 but will close issues in github, left it as it is as legacy.

@nicjo814 what do you think about te future of the plugin.

Yea its also wasted dev time that can be used somewhere more important because you can get all the frontend functions and more in portainer, was just a suggestion but you are right...

Hi @ryecoaaron,

sorry, for the late response. I forgot this post.

Quote from ryecoaaron

It is integrated. Being a plugin doesn't make it any less integrated. I also am quite sure Volker would not want to maintain it.

I like the simplicity of the current docker ui integration into the omv web ui. Docker brings a great value to openmediavault! We all recognized that omv has less plugins from version to version, because there are docker containers.

Quote from ryecoaaron

Why? It is just a frontend for docker which is maintained. And portainer is a better frontend that has substantially better maintenance and support.

Yes, but I don't need all the features from the portainer web ui, which make the docker thing more complicated. I am absolutely satisfied, with what we have at the moment.

Quote from ryecoaaron

You wouldn't lose docker. Since docker has become so important (I push it a lot), I could just add a button to omv to install docker and portainer. Then everything else would be done from the excellent portainer web interface.

Yes, I recongnized, that you push it a lot. If there is no plugin, there is most often a docker container. And that's the thing, why I think it should get integrated into omv as a standard. Everbody needs features, which can be easily found, installed and used by the docker plugin and how it is integrated into the omv web ui.

Yes, I also know, that you can add a button easily to make most of us happy. But the guys new to omv have to use at least two web uis, although docker is a main feature for them and most of us. Maybe it's the way to go. The noise to use portainer was also not very loud.

Quote from ryecoaaron

We don't have full support for zfs?? Sounds like you really want proxmox + docker + portainer with OMV in a VM. servethehome.com/creating-the-…tup-with-management-guis/

Yes, you are right, zfs plugin is integrated. You and the other plugin devs are doing a really good job! Thanks for this. But it would be great to have official debian support for zfs like it is under ubuntu. So, for the moment nothing we can do here.

No, I don't want proxmox and so on with omv in a vm. I don't use proxmox since a year, because I like omv mastering my hardware directly without pci or usb passthrough and so on. System complexity is much lower and much easier to handle now. All I want is omv to be my main system with all the features linux brings to us with lowest complexity in using it.

Regards Hoppel

Quote from hoppel118

Yes, but I don't need all the features from the portainer web ui, which make the docker thing more complicated. I am absolutely satisfied, with what we have at the moment.

What we have at the moment may break and we don't really have anyone who wants to maintain it. Personally, I don't think the portainer web ui is that much more complicated, it is just different. So, the reason to move to portainer isn't for features, it is for support.

Quote from hoppel118

why I think it should get integrated into omv as a standard.

But if Volker doesn't want to do that and no one wants to maintain the plugin. how is this accomplished?

Quote from hoppel118

But the guys new to omv have to use at least two web uis

People using docker are most likely already using more than two web UIs. The most popular dockers are plex and the file sharing containers. These are have their own web UI. So, I don't think this is an issue.

Quote from hoppel118

The noise to use portainer was also not very loud.

That is because the plugin works right now. Changes in OMV 5 could require a lot of work for the plugin which I don't think will be done. So, we trying to prepare for the future.

Quote from hoppel118

But it would be great to have official debian support for zfs like it is under ubuntu

zfs support in Debian is official. The module just isn't pre-compiled for each kernel. Once your system compiles the module, they are pretty much identical. This is also easily avoided by using the proxmox kernel installed by omv-extras. It is the Ubuntu kernel and since Proxmox uses the Debian userland, it is very well tested and stable for use with OMV.

Quote from hoppel118

No, I don't want proxmox and so on with omv in a vm. I don't use proxmox since a year, because I like omv mastering my hardware directly without pci or usb passthrough and so on. System complexity is much lower and much easier to handle now. All I want is omv to be my main system with all the features linux brings to us with lowest complexity in using it.

Just an idea since I personally run OMV in very few places on physical hardware anymore.

@ryecoaaron Yep, I understand all your points and at least I am fine with it. I only wanted to bring in another point of view.

I decided to leave the proxmox path, because I had problems with parallel pci passthrough of my dvb device (digital devices max s8) and my sas controller (lsi 3008). Everything was fine with proxmox4 and omv3, but not with proxmox5. I don’t think that it was a knowledge problem. I really understood how it works.

Maybe I should give it another try. Nowadays my dvb card is supported in the kernel and it should also be the case for the current proxmox kernel (4.15). But it wasn’t the case for the last stable pve kernel.

Regards Hoppel

There is some problem with the latest version of docker and OMV (maybe with the latest backport kernel)?
I'm reading about a lot of people having permission errors other than myself.

The containers seems to run fine with root, but if we use a dedicated user they will give a lot of permissions errors.

I've saw a lot of issues with the RPI and docker... but that seems to be an issue w/ the docker plugin itself, not permissions... What are you referring to?

In the docker section there I read about other user having permissions errors. Even on the discord group of Linuxserv.io I found other users with OMV having weir permission errors.
In my case it seems that the docker users can't access at the docker folder containing the image and container even if it's the owner.
Example: qBittornt is giving me this error: "Failed to open /dev/urandom" plex this one: "sh: 1: cannot create /dev/null: Permission denied"

I think that i may be because I changed the default location of images:
2019_03_21 14;26;34 - Window 7 [In esecuzione] - Oracle VM VirtualBox.jpg

This folder is on an other ext4 partition.
Even if I gave Dockeruser every permission and ownership to this folder it doesn't seems to work.

Hi everyone,
I'm trying to change the repository and use the default one, but I can't do it.
I tried this way:
- Changed the repository to "none" -> reboot NAS -> download a random image -> it's still download insta Docker-Immagini
- Uninstalled the plugin-> reboot NAS -> install the plugin -> download a random image -> it's still download insta Docker-Immagini

How should I do to tell docker plugin to ignore the repository in Docker-Immagini and use the default one?

HI everyone,
after running ouroboros something went wrong when updating the Radarr container:
using the command docker ps this is the output:
a87206bb360c dd6d29bb7b15 "/init" 3 weeks ago Up 27 hours Radarr
Instead of "a87206bb360c" I should have Radarr.
I tried to run docker-compose pull then a docker-compose up -d, but docker-compose is not installed.

There is some way to resolve this or should I just run a new container? I'm fine with that, I was just curios about if there is some other way to do it.

Quote from Blabla

In the docker section there I read about other user having permissions errors. Even on the discord group of Linuxserv.io I found other users with OMV having weir permission errors.
In my case it seems that the docker users can't access at the docker folder containing the image and container even if it's the owner.
Example: qBittornt is giving me this error: "Failed to open /dev/urandom" plex this one: "sh: 1: cannot create /dev/null: Permission denied"

I think that i may be because I changed the default location of images:
2019_03_21 14;26;34 - Window 7 [In esecuzione] - Oracle VM VirtualBox.jpg

This folder is on an other ext4 partition.
Even if I gave Dockeruser every permission and ownership to this folder it doesn't seems to work.

Display More

I'm not really sure why, but this is expected behavior. When the plugin is activated/restarted, it sets the permissions for that folder as root for read/write with users having no access. So even if you change it, it's going to get changed back... Honestly I can't really imagine why a user would need access to that folder, there's not really anything there

Quote from KM0201

I'm not really sure why, but this is expected behavior. When the plugin is activated/restarted, it sets the permissions for that folder as root for read/write with users having no access. So even if you change it, it's going to get changed back... Honestly I can't really imagine why a user would need access to that folder, there's not really anything there

After the update I was able to revert to the default, so now everything is working fine

it seems there is a bug in the Start docker container button. Pressing just the start button does nothing. I need to click the dropdown arrow, the press the second start button that appers