How to turn my docker file to a docker folder?

[itimpi]

Just now, Squid said:

 

Yeah,

 

2 ways of doing that.  Either changing the text  "Mover transfers files from cache to array" to instead be "Mover transfers files from pool to array" in the code, or changing the en_US master translation file from

Mover transfers files from cache to array=

to instead be

Mover transfers files from cache to array=Mover transfers files from pool to array

 

1st method requires every language to be updated to reflect the change which is a PITA for such a minor change

2nd method keeps all of the existing translations in place, but would update the English description shown in the GUI

 

Personally, I'd do #2, but it's up to @bonienl

I was thinking of going further than that and changing the actual title of the setting to be “Use Pool” instead of “Use Cache”.   I agree that then items like the ancillary text and help text needs updating.   However it seems to me that this is both a more realistic view of how pools are now treated and will be going forward and less likely to cause confusion with new users.   It also would mean Language packs would need updating, but again I feel this might be a worthwhile pain to take to improve the final result and reduce user errors.

[bonienl]

For future development it will be indeed clearer to reference to pools and replace the cache wording.

This is a pretty extensive task (there are quite alot of references in the GUI), but it can be made a roadmap item.

 

Doing this inevitably means updates to translation files, but the system allows both old and new to work next to each other.

 

Btw same goes for documentation…

[Kazino43]

One more question. After everything is changed, the docker.img used before can be safely deleted, right? 

[Squid]

4 hours ago, Kazino43 said:

One more question. After everything is changed, the docker.img used before can be safely deleted, right? 

yes

[Squid]

On 3/27/2023 at 7:13 AM, itimpi said:

changing the actual title of the setting to be “Use Pool” instead of “Use Cache”

Updates to FCP.  Presumably updates to Unbalance.  Possibly others and incorporating backwards compatibility.  For something only a dev sees when there's no actual change in the function of the setting.  Just change the text...

[itimpi]

6 hours ago, Squid said:

Updates to FCP.  Presumably updates to Unbalance.  Possibly others and incorporating backwards compatibility.  For something only a dev sees when there's no actual change in the function of the setting.  Just change the text...

Not sure why any functionality would change in FCP or unBalance as I would leave the internal values visible only to devs unchanged - just alter the displayed ones. It is therefore not a breaking change.   I therefore see no reason why the functionality of any existing code would break, although I agree there might be a few cases where the text of messages should then be improved..
 

This setting is a classic case of one where the functionality is exactly as intended but the presentation of it leads to users regularly misunderstanding it and taking the wrong action.   As such it should be treated as a bug that needs correcting if it is practical.  It seems to me that changing the displayed title and text of the one of the associated drop down options does not actually break any functionality - it just means that there are places where messages and/or documentation should be updated to reflect the emphasis of ‘Pool’ over ‘Cache’.

[Squid]

I thought you meant change the setting itself.  Just change the text.  FWIW, 6.12 does say Use Pool.  It's the auxiliary text that refers to cache and not pool

[itimpi]

4 minutes ago, Squid said:

I thought you meant change the setting itself.  Just change the text.  FWIW, 6.12 does say Use Pool.  It's the auxiliary text that refers to cache and not pool

Just spotted that.   I would suggest also changing the Yes option in the drop-down to read ‘cache’ rather than ‘yes’ (again leaving internal value alone).    That is another change I think worthwhile as being a more accurate representation of what that setting does.

 

I can update online documentation to reflect the change in emphasis (since I have access to it), but I will leave in place a reference to the fact the value used prior to 6.12.

[bonienl]

On 3/27/2023 at 12:56 PM, itimpi said:

One thing that occurred to me is whether the text for that setting should be changed to "Use Pool" and then the current Yes setting changed to read "Cache" so that the possibilities become "No, "Cache", "Prefer", "Only".  I think that might dramatically reduce the number of users who misunderstand that setting?  What do you think?

 

Here is my proposal

1. When a new share is added, it will have the settings "Share location" and "Select pool"
2. For "Share location" there are four choices, see picture below

 

1. On the Shares page the column "Cache" is replaced by "Location" and it shows where the share is located and can be moved to.

 

or

 

 

Any thoughts?

 

[itimpi]

I like the idea for the share settings page although perhaps “Location for new files/folders” instead of “Share Location (for new files/directories”” might be a slight improvement?   I thought of adding 'Preferred' at the start because the “On Array, move to Pool” implies the file always starts on the array rather than the array acting as an overflow, but not got an immediate thought on improving that wording.
 

Not quite sure what I think about the suggested value for Location on the Shares summary page - let me think about that a bit more   In particular the ‘zfs’ entry stands out as a possible anomaly - when exactly does that apply?

 

[bonienl]

23 minutes ago, itimpi said:

when exactly does that apply?

 

These are the names of the pools on my system, in other words location refers to the pool name or array.

 

[itimpi]

12 minutes ago, bonienl said:

 

These are the names of the pools on my system, in other words location refers to the pool name or array.

 

OK - I understand that better now.   Note I have slightly edited my initial reply as well about the Shares setting page.  Perhaps a few more back-snd-forths before we come up with the ideal answer?

 

Maybe we should actively ask some others (e.g. @JorgeB or @Squid) if they have views on this?

 

 

[bonienl]

"No" and "Only" are very straightforward: on array or on pool.

 

"Yes" works with overflow

Content is written to the "cache" (pool), but may overflow to the array when insufficient space is left on "cache" (pool).

Mover will move content from "cache" (pool) to the array (its designated operation)

 

"Prefer" is a special case.

When the user does not have a "cache" (pool) then content is written to the array.

Once the user adds a "cache" (pool) and runs mover, this will move the content from array to "cache" (pool) (its designated operation)

Now the share exists on "cache" (pool) and any new content will go there, mover is not involved anymore.

 

[itimpi]

4 minutes ago, bonienl said:

"Prefer" is a special case.

When the user does not have a "cache" (pool) then content is written to the array.

Once the user adds a "cache" (pool) and runs mover, this will move the content from array to "cache" (pool) (its designated operation)

Now the share exists on "cache" (pool) and any new content will go there, mover is not involved anymore.

This is the hardest to summarize in just a few words as it needs to cover both the case of a pool being present and one being used.   The idea that occurs to me is to hae the Settings page say "On Pool, Overflow on array" without mentioning mover?  That seems the shortest idea I can yet come up with.

 

I have only just got up so I will let the idea percolate a bit more.  Maybe after having coffee something will occur to me  

 

[JorgeB]

35 minutes ago, itimpi said:

This is the hardest to summarize in just a few words

Yeah, and from the suggestions so far this is my favorite:

 

37 minutes ago, itimpi said:

"On Pool, Overflow on array"

Since the mover behavior is already covered with this line:

 

For the location option I would prefer the 2nd one.

 

[bonienl]

To make it more visual

 

 

 == Pool

== Array

 == Pool, Overflow, Mover, Array

== Pool present, Array, Mover, Pool

 

Hovering with your mouse over the "locations" shows the above explanations. Perhaps better wording is needed

 

 

 

 

[bonienl]

 

 

[itimpi]

1 hour ago, bonienl said:

 

 

I like this for the drop down values.    I would prefer the text for the setting to simply read "Location for new files/directories" (or 'folders' if preferred instead of 'directories' as seems to be the modern trend) as this puts more emphasis for it applying only to new content.

[bonienl]

 

[itimpi]

To me that looks good for the Shares setting page.    

 

Not 100% sure yet about the Share summary page, but at the moment I cannot think of anything obviously better.

[bonienl]

Instead of "Location" we can use "Placement", I think it is the more appropriate term?

 

 

[itimpi]

14 minutes ago, bonienl said:

Instead of "Location" we can use "Placement", I think it is the more appropriate term?

I would be happy with that.   It is probably more accurate, although a slightly more obscure word.  

[JorgeB]

Like the share settings 👍, no strong opinion about "location" or "placement", could go either way.

[Santi]

Hello,

 

Is this recommended to switch to? (image -> folder)

Any contraindications on why we shouldn't use it?

It looks like all Pros reading the thread, but no Cons are mentioned.

[thunderclap]

Will converting dockers to folders from images speed up their load time? Right now I have 15-20 docker containers on an SSD and it takes a good 10 min for them all to load.