Portainer Alternative

  • Yes but Yacht runs in a container so that would require mounting an additional volume to include your network shares as it's restricted to it's own filesystem

    I hate to admit that I didn't think about the restrictions surrounding that (Yacht itself is running in a container).

    Still being able able to navigate the file system of the host, to set a bind point, would be nice if possible. Thanks.

  • I've been wanting to look at this since I saw this thread a few days ago and finally had some time tonight. I like Portainer a lot (yeah it isn't perfect.. but I like it)... but this looks pretty good.


    Not much I can really add that hasn't been said above already, but you're off to a great start IMO. I'll definitely be following this.

  • Still being able able to navigate the file system of the host, to set a bind point, would be nice if possible. Thanks.

    That was the first thing I noticed missing in Portainer. And the explanation was the same - it runs in a container.

    --
    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.

  • That was the first thing I noticed missing in Portainer. And the explanation was the same - it runs in a container.

    That was my first thought and the difference between the plugin and Portainer, but I would assume you could browse the host by IP address or hostname. My reasoning behind that, is I recently redeployed Emby in docker instead of creating bind mounts to each media share as I did previously, I bypassed that and within Emby's GUI I used the host's IP address to browse to the shares.

  • I'm thinking more along the lines of how to describe a MacVlan interface to new users, how to configure it, and what it takes to write an easy to understand "walk-through" for configuring Docker containers. While it has a lot of options and is easier to use than the command line, Portainer doesn't lend itself to those tasks.

    Here's to hoping that Yacht will make things easier for all concerned.

    Thats what I could really do with, I love docker and OMV, but haven't found a guide that makes sense to me yet :(

  • Thats what I could really do with, I love docker and OMV, but haven't found a guide that makes sense to me yet :(

    I would love to hear your thoughts on it. I threw together a beginners guide and using the templates that are recommended (if you go to add a template and there aren't any it'll have the url of the templates I recommend) it should be just clicking next through the deployment ( once you set your template variables) : https://ycht.tech/Installation/gettingstarted/

  • There may be a way to install Portainer directly without running it as a docker; I don't know. But even if it could be installed that way the file system browser to select binds is still absent.

    --
    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.

  • Let me preface this with, "this is just my opinion".

    Thats what I could really do with, I love docker and OMV, but haven't found a guide that makes sense to me yet

    Portainer has lots of guides,, but I know what you mean. Lot's of How-To's exist for OMV4, to get things off the ground with the Docker plugin. Going back to Portainer; for a variety of reasons, Portainer (in OMV5) is another animal. It has lots of features and a GUI interface but there's something going on with the organization of it that doesn't make sense to inexperienced users.

    The Plugin is pretty straight forward.
    - Pull an image
    - Name the container (optional)
    - Set a restart policy (not critical in most cases)
    - Pick the Networking mode and ports.
    - Set Environment variables which includes permissions (if needed).
    - Set volumes and bind points (if needed)
    - Set extra arguments (if needed)

    Done.

    That was accomplished in one scrolling dialog box. The focus and complexity was on what was needed, to get the container working - NOT in navigating the interface. It moved from the basics toward more complex settings, as it should.
    _____________________________________________________

    Portainer is another matter.
    - First it must be decided which of 3 environments the user wants to manipulate (way overkill for home or small business use).
    - Then it's on to "endpoints" where there are additional settings for new users to get lost in. "Local" must be selected.
    - When "Local" is selected a page with a smorgasbord of options is displayed with nothing to indicate how to pull an image and / or configure a container. There's no logical flow - nothing is intuitive.
    - The image is pulled from docker hub in the blind (no browsing for it with a few characters).
    - Whether the image is local or remote, the processes to start a container involve going to yet another web page and configuring it using multiple tabbed web pages.


    I could go on but it's pretty obvious why new users get lost in Portainer, especially when noting that most new users have very little understanding of Dockers, at least in the beginning. There's no logical flow that moves from basic toward higher end features. It's the other way around. (One must sort through the high end features to get to the basics.)

    Here's hoping that Yacht works in a manner similar to the plugin, where the focus is on downloading and / or pulling an image from the hub and getting "a container" started. Then, support of stacks would be nice with Docker compose.


    It's the corporate options that should be buried in the menus, where experienced users can find them but where beginners are unlikely to go .


  • That was accomplished in one scrolling dialog box. The focus and complexity was on what was needed, to get the container working - NOT in navigating the interface. It moved from the basics toward more complex settings, as it should.
    _____________________________________________________

    My thoughts exactly. I do like stacks though.

  • I do like stacks though.

    There's nothing wrong with supporting Docker compose for setting up multiple containers.

    But, for Docker beginners, there's something to be said for being able to pull a single image and run a container from it, in a simple manner. That's a learning tool and a first step, from which an understanding of Docker compose becomes possible.

  • But, for Docker beginners, there's something to be said for being able to pull a single image and run a container from it, in simple manner. That's a learning tool and a first step, from which an understanding of Docker compose becomes possible.

    That is how I began with OMV4 and the Docker plug-in. And I started on Docker because I couldn't get Pi-Hole working, so went for the Docker version, which necessitated macvlan. With the Docker plug-in I managed, with Portainer I still haven't been able to create a macvlan. At present I use the command line to create macvlans and start the containers and I use Portainer only for monitoring (when I suspect something is wrong) and to kill and/or remove a container as that is where a GUI comes in handy. For some reason I never got Docker-compose working and I don't feel the need any more as I keep all my commands for the various containers and macvlans as text files on my laptop, where they are available if I have to reinstall an RPi.


    And yes, I still miss that possibility to pull a single image and run a container from it, even though I don't need it any longer. It made it a lot easier to find a nice image doing what you are looking for.

  • I just installed Yacht and it immediately showed me a problem with one container that wasn't visible with Portainer until I did a deep inspection, something I wouldn't have done without some indication there was a problem.


    It was a problem (continuous restarting) which also showed up in the old Docker plug-in and which still doesn't show in Portainer, something I pointed out before if memory serves.

  • I just installed Yacht and it immediately showed me a problem with one container that wasn't visible with Portainer until I did a deep inspection, something I wouldn't have done without some indication there was a problem.


    It was a problem (continuous restarting) which also showed up in the old Docker plug-in and which still doesn't show in Portainer, something I pointed out before if memory serves.

    Glad to hear that! It's definitely still a work in progress and lots of things are being worked on. If you have any feature requests or thoughts on things that you think should change please feel free to open a Feature request on the GitHub repo.


    This coming week I'm hoping to get Image, Volume, and Network managment into the master branch. Then it's back to docker-compose (decided to work on these so I could have a break and re-evaluate how I want to do things) if anyone has an idea of a good UI flow I'd love to hear it (I'm thinking similar to the apps list but it shows the stack and you can select services to up/down and view details on)

  • Hello,


    Myth3k

    Thanks for Yacht!

    Indeed I have a feature request (and I know it is a big one):

    The thing that makes portainer hard to use for beginners is:

    1) Docker Slang

    2) No access to Folder Structure of Host

    3) Not directly inside OMV User-Interface


    I have these suggestions:

    1) Maybe via internationalization provide an easy language

    Rather than "Port Mapping": "under wich port do you want to access the application"

    One could even suggest one. E.g. if the port in the container is 9000, check if 9000 is free and propose that as default. Otherwise take N+1 as suggestion

    Rather than "Volumes": "Where do you want to store the data known in the application as /config" (/config is one of the Volumes that the container defines)


    2) Provide Yacht also as *.deb so that it does not have to run as docker container

    - or - one would have to expose "/" to the container

    - or - /sharefolders (because in fact one should only use those)


    3) Would it be somehow possible to integrate Yacht in the GUI of OMV? I think something new is planned for OMV6.


    Regards,

    Hendrik

  • Would it be somehow possible to integrate Yacht in the GUI of OMV? I think something new is planned for OMV6.

    This would be a huge undertaking. Yacht isn't written for OMV and they work completely different (node.js and vue vs custom php engine and react).

    omv 5.5.22 usul | 64 bit | 5.4 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 5.4.4
    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!

  • That would definitely be out of scope unfortunately. I am open to adding an env variable to yacht to autoload OMV template variables though which may make it a bit easier for volume mounts.


    The port forwarding side of things is already accomplished via variables. As far as UI being integrated, the project is independent from OMV. It does have an API and documentation if OMV decides they want to integrate with it but I wouldn't count on it as it's a bit out of scope for either project.

Participate now!

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