TekWarren

@Mihai Hello. I know you had previously eluded that you may stop supporting this invoice ninja package for unraid but I wanted to ask if that is now the case? I am having an issue between the official mobile app and my self-hosted version and I noticed that my instance while "up to date" is behind the official the current official rev. I'm not sure this is the cause of my issue but I know the dev will point it out as a discrepancy if I attempt to submit an issue on github. Thank you again for your time.

Thanks, this is what I was after.

@JorgeB This is what others have mentioned. Is this still the case when only a single drive is in the array? Since when only one drive is in the array no parity is taking place but rather a mirror is in effect per the old post I found. Or trim just simply disabled regardless in the array? Thanks

My question in its simplest form is if ssd's can be used when the scenario/config is one single array drive and one parity drive? I know that the recommendation in general is not to use SSD when there are multiple array drives and parity XOR is in play. However, in a 1to1 scenario parity/array; I understand that these drives mirror and "parity" is not taking place but data is being written to both (mirrored) as stated by Limetech. So in this scenario is it safe to use SSD? Reddit folks are unsure, some saying not to use SSD citing parity and trim issues but my reference post says that parity is not a factor in this scenario. I know it's not a likely scenario but is what I have going on as far as one parity and one data... currently both mechanical but no plans or need to add drives in this build. Thank you Reference post attached, it 7 years old so maybe things have changed.

@Mihai Thanks for replying. I certainly understand about time constraints and again I for one really appreciate that you have maintained this build for us and how easy you've made it to get up and running. Maybe this other one is something I will play with this winter as I do less outside work (farm business) but was just curious if anyone following this thread had thoughts or has used this other one. Again, very appreciative of your time and efforts.

Haven't visited this thread in a while and was just getting my unraid containers all updated trying to convince myself to upgrade from 6.x 7.x...Anyway, I noticed a newish Invoice Ninja "app" in the unraid library. There used to be a couple, one I originally tried didn't work this one (mihai) did. Being curious I looked into this other one and it looks like its direct pull from invoice ninja's debian docker image which they moved to some time ago. I'm curious if anyone has played with this other one? I know Mihai mentioned a while back that they may or are not using this product anymore and his continued support for the unraid channel was kinda up in the air. Not sure if that's still the case @Mihai ? -This container still works perfectly for me don't get me wrong and I am grateful for the maintenance.

@andyberry tough without logs. Maybe unraid logs will give a clue if the docker container doesn't. Look at your database container also. Check that neither are being memory restricted.

@avinyc Unless I'm mistaken the build you are referencing is not based on the new Debian base invoice ninja is now using, that is what I was asking about. This build you reference also seems pretty old after looking at the GitHub page for it. I'm happy with Mihai's template here it was a breeze to install I am now just concerned about keeps it going/updated with the official and also interested in how we might convert to the new Debian build. My simple mindedness thinks it would not be difficult and potentially use the same DB. The IN devs also mention a path change but that should be easily mapping in an unraid template. I just don't know enough about what other things Mihai had to do to make this build work. Might try just manually building the Debian version in unraid docker at some point and see what happens.

@Mihai and anyone else using Invoice Ninja: I'm wondering what it really would take to use this new docker image? Not really having a clue what Mihai put into making this one work for us. Could be as simple as manually adding a container and kinda matching up the settings (not the same ports if both instances are live of course)? It seems like we could just point the data paths to our existing directories and database?

@Mihai Certainly understandable on the time front. I was surprised to find invoice ninja here. I actually found IN first and then went looking for a NAS setup and to my surprise this, your work has allowed that to be one in the same. I do hope that what is in place can continue to move forward. I don't know how or what is involved but I would help if needed.

@Mihai I don't spend a lot of time on the invoice ninja forums unless I'm having an issue or question...I just came across a post from November saying they changed their image from Alpine to Debian based but sounds like both are still supported. I was curious what the plans are (if any) for the unRAID image you support here? The Dev says "no easy way to migrate" but then talks about it just being some path changes. Anyway, I was just curious. Thanks for keeping this alive here!

@HurleyThank you!

@Hurley I have held off updating to 7 so appreciate the notice as invoice ninja is the most important thing running on my unraid server. I don't really have any suggestions but I'm not sure why the update would break a self contained docker image. Are you on latest IN image? Enable any of the new features unraid 7 brings? Just thinking out loud. I run a secondary instance of docker and a clone of my IN on another computer for backup and testing. If you get into a pinch, fire up docker for windows and pull invoice ninja. All you need to do then is restore a database backup and copy over the folder that contains all the documents and such.

@Ph4nTom The solution is have your instance Internet facing like I mentioned. It's not something broken but how you (and I) are hosting it. The email templates assume the company logo is accessible via the web so when you use the stock template that can't access it, the result is a broken image. You can make a new template as I did and just not have the logo in emails...or you could try hosting your logo somewhere and pointing your email template html at that.

@Ph4nTom This occurs because the stock email template assumes your instance is accessible via the web and it's trying to pull the logo from your IN instance. My instance is local only so my workaround of I remember correctly was to create a new email temp without the image (logo).