OMV 5 - So Confused

  • Hello all,


    I am a long time user of OMV 2.2.14 (Stone burner). I've never had any reason to upgrade before, but I am building a new NAS and decided to try the latest.


    Well, so many of the plugins I use are not even available in version 5, even after I installed OMV-Extras. When I search, all I find is all this complicated stuff about docker/portainer, etc.


    Why would the developers move away from such a simple plugin management to something so complicated?


    I would like opinions on which version of OMV I should run if I like the way 2.2.14 works (simple!) but would like something a bit more modern. I really don't like the way version 5 works.


    Thanks!

  • Why would the developers move away from such a simple plugin management to something so complicated?

    Because maintaining plugins need man-power and there are not enough contributions from the community to keep the high number of plugins alive. If there are more contributers and maintainers, then the ecosystem gets greater again.


    The new Docker UIs are much more powerful than the old OMV plugin.

  • I see. So version 5 is easy for contributors and maintainers, but far more difficult for users. This seems backwards to me, but I do understand you have limited time and perhaps there is not enough help.


    I don't want to sound ungrateful, but can you answer my other question? I would like opinions on which version of OMV I should run if I like the way 2.2.14 works (simple!) but would like something a bit more modern.


    If the answer is 2.2.14 then I will simply create an image and migrate this very old version to new hardware.

  • The new Docker UIs are much more powerful than the old OMV plugin.

    I spent all day and can't figure out how to even use docker. I watched some videos from TechnoDadLife but they were for version 4.x. At least in 4.x you can still install Transmission (for example) directly in the OMV webGUI with a few clicks.


    In 5.x I get nothing except a portainer webGUI that I have no idea how to use. No docker listed in services, nothing. And no docs.

  • If you are unwilling to learn new things then you have arrived at a dead end.


    Portainer is extensively documented and has a large user base.


    Install OMV 4.x while you still can. It will soon reach EOL and when it does there will no upgrades, no security patches, and no official support.

    --
    Google is your friend and Bob's your uncle!


    OMV AMD64 5.x on ASRock Rack C2550D4I C0 Stepping - 16GB ECC - Silverstone DS380 + Silverstone DS380 DAS Box.

    Edited once, last by gderf ().

  • When I search, all I find is all this complicated stuff about docker/portainer, etc.

    I agree absolutely with you. I saw some videos from Technodadlife how the docker containers have to be configured. A lot of copy and paste stuff of command line strings from wikipedia pages to the docker plugin and so on. Maybe now easier with Portainer, but for me with absolute no experience in the "docker way" much more complicated then the old way with plugins.

    But I also see the maintaining problem of the plugins. Therefore sooner or later it will be necessary to do the changeover. If I were to build a new NAS now, I would always use the current version of OMV and would not put any work into outdated software.

    Indeed I maybe would give FreeNAS a second chance, because the ZFS integration is way better than in OMV. Unfortunately.

    OMV 3.0.100 (Gray style)
    ASRock Rack C2550D4I C0-stepping - 16GB ECC - 6x WD RED 3TB (ZFS 2x3 Striped RaidZ1)- Fractal Design Node 304

  • I don't want to sound ungrateful, but can you answer my other question? I would like opinions on which version of OMV I should run if I like the way 2.2.14 works (simple!) but would like something a bit more modern.

    Docker means a learning curve but when done, it bring A LOT of possibilities.

    well it depends on your NAS activities profile.
    If you are willing to list the things you are doing currently in your NAS it would be easier to give you a meaningful advice. (and some help if needed)


  • Indeed I maybe would give FreeNAS a second chance, because the ZFS integration is way better than in OMV. Unfortunately.

    If you plan to test FreeNAS , please try too XigmaNAS, need less resources and have all ZFS features that you can need.

  • If you plan to test FreeNAS , please try too XigmaNAS,

    At the moment, I do not have any specific plans to do so. OMV meets all my current requirements.:)


    Thanks for this hint! In the past I had a look at the predecessor of XigmaNAS, which was called 'Nas4free' and I have used it on another NAS. Then I changed the hardware and there was no lan-driver with WOL-support in FreeBSD available for my integrated network interface. This was the time OMV came into play.

    OMV 3.0.100 (Gray style)
    ASRock Rack C2550D4I C0-stepping - 16GB ECC - 6x WD RED 3TB (ZFS 2x3 Striped RaidZ1)- Fractal Design Node 304

  • 100+ employees helps.

    Having a healthy and well maintained development environment helps as well. OMV doesn't have that, so no new developers want to join this community as developers or plugin creators. The "proposed" REST API could help with this a bit, but there's no way of telling whether this idea is being developed or not at all.

  • Having a healthy and well maintained development environment helps as well.

    What do you mean by "development environment"?


    OMV doesn't have that, so no new developers want to join this community as developers or plugin creators.

    It would be nice if people would help develop the development environment. I don't know who else is going to create it. Volker maintains OMV and I maintain plugins. This is not enough people.

    The "proposed" REST API could help with this a bit, but there's no way of telling whether this idea is being developed or not at all.

    How does a REST API help? I can see how that would make it easier for third party apps to connect to OMV but I don't see how it would help creating plugins.

    omv 5.6.2 usul | 64 bit | 5.4 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 5.5.3
    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github


    Please read this before posting a question.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

  • But I also see the maintaining problem of the plugins. Therefore sooner or later it will be necessary to do the changeover. If I were to build a new NAS now, I would always use the current version of OMV and would not put any work into outdated software.

    Indeed I maybe would give FreeNAS a second chance, because the ZFS integration is way better than in OMV. Unfortunately.

    My (very) outdated Stone Burner (2.2.14) continues to work flawlessly, day after day, and remains dead simple to use. Uptimes are measured in months or sometimes years and only reset due to power outages. If "progress" means I need to spend 10x as much time to build a system that I no longer understand - and the end result is the exact same features that I have right now, well then I'd rather stay in the "Stone" age.


    I looked into FreeNAS and I am shocked at the RAM requirements. Insanity. I have also heard (from people I trust) that ZFS is over-rated. A simple md RAID1 array is all I need.

  • Docker means a learning curve but when done, it bring A LOT of possibilities.

    So far, Docker appears to be a complete waste of resources. I have blown away OMV5 and installed OMV4. So now I can at least have an integrated DockerGUI, and I was able to figure out how to get the image for sabnzbd. 247MB ! A source tarball for sabnzbd is like 5MB. Not to mention I have no idea how to get the Docker image to work.


    I honestly believe that it would be MUCH easier and faster for me to simply install and configure sabnzbd from the command-line and run it as a service like any other. I can deal with the fact that it won't show up in OMV webGUI. Once it is configured it just works for years and years anyway. Best part is, I understand the way that works so if it breaks I can fix it - and it'll use far less resources.

  • My (very) outdated Stone Burner (2.2.14) continues to work flawlessly, day after day, and remains dead simple to use. Uptimes are measured in months or sometimes years and only reset due to power outages.

    That is dangerous since the underlying Debian install isn't being patched for security updates. Many of the Windows viruses that search for samba shares could encrypt all of your files if you had smb1 shares available. My OMV 4 and 5 installs run extremely well too. And change does not mean something is not simple to use. It just means it is different. Sometimes more flexibility requires change.



    If "progress" means I need to spend 10x as much time to build a system that I no longer understand - and the end result is the exact same features that I have right now, well then I'd rather stay in the "Stone" age.

    Did you understand OMV 2.x (or whatever the first OMV version you used) 100% the first time you used it? And if everything should stay dead simple, do you have a solution how to maintain all the plugins?


    I have also heard (from people I trust) that ZFS is over-rated. A simple md RAID1 array is all I need.

    I don't use zfs but I would never call it over-rated. I would be very curious why you need a raid 1 array.

    omv 5.6.2 usul | 64 bit | 5.4 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 5.5.3
    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github


    Please read this before posting a question.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

  • So in the end, Docker appears to be an incredibly complicated and wasteful way to avoid having to install and configure services from the command-line. If that's true, then I certainly don't need or want it.

  • So far, Docker appears to be a complete waste of resources.

    False. Other than a small amount of base OS packages, it won't use any more space than the dependencies of the app you are trying to use. It is not virtualization. So, other than a few megs of disk space (which does deduplicate for multiple containers)...

    I honestly believe that it would be MUCH easier and faster for me to simply install and configure sabnzbd from the command-line and run it as a service like any other. I can deal with the fact that it won't show up in OMV webGUI. Once it is configured it just works for years and years anyway. Best part is, I understand the way that works so if it breaks I can fix it - and it'll use far less resources.

    You can use the command line but can't run the following?

    docker run --name sabnzbd -v <datadir path>:/datadir -v <media path>:/media -p 8080:8080 --restart=unless-stopped sabnzbd/sabnzbd

    It will run for years and years and survive OS upgrades MUCH better.


    Far less resources... If a few megs of disk bothers, you shouldn't upgrade versions of WIndows either.

    omv 5.6.2 usul | 64 bit | 5.4 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 5.5.3
    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github


    Please read this before posting a question.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

  • So in the end, Docker appears to be an incredibly complicated and wasteful way to avoid having to install and configure services from the command-line. If that's true, then I certainly don't need or want it.

    You should probably look again at Portainer....it is a very nice WEB GUI for Docker.

    Regarding ressources, Dockers on OVM 4 or OVM 5 have exactly the same memory profiles needs.

    good luck to you !

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!