Leifgg Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Hello I'm stuck with this question "Q) Why is Crashplan storing backups in my docker.img?", ive tried the steps suggested and its still backing up to the image i have mounted an smb share of another nas using unassigned devices... please help Kind Regards Ryan It could be that the folder mappings for the container are incorrect. Another reason is the fact that you are using the plugin Unassigned Devices to connect to a remote server. When you start your server the Docker containers (and CrashPlan) are started before the plugin Unassigned Devices has been started and mounted the remote server. This makes your remote server invisible for CrashPlan. Go to Main (unRAID GUI) and Unassigned Devices and click on the Mount point entry and make sure that you can see the folder on the remote server and its content. If that works, use the CrashPlan GUI and select Destinations and browse for the destination folder and see if you can see it here as well. It would be useful to see your folder mappings for CrashPlan. I have included the settings for my configuration. Quote Link to comment
trurl Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Dockers cannot see anything that was mounted after the docker service starts. Go to Settings - Docker and stop then restart the docker service after you mount anything with Unassigned Devices if you need any docker to see it. Quote Link to comment
Helmonder Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Hi guys, I'm new at Dockers, and just installed this package on my Synology. The systeem seems to install, but i'm encountering 2 problemens. When i want to login to VNC ( the webinterface works ) I cannot connect ( tried using the password PASSWD ) When i restart te container I see this in the terminal screen : Did not find /usr/local/crashplan/bin/run.conf This is in the log file : 172.17.42.1: ignoring socket not ready Any help would be greatly appreciated! Regards, Riestad I guess you should ask on a synology forum ? Quote Link to comment
opentoe Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 For Crashplan to quote such impossible memory requirements is ridiculous. Who has 600MB? Who has 1TB of memory? No one. Maybe a super computer that costs as much as a car. 600mb of memory ? everyone... 1TB of memory would be for approx 1500tb of storage... I think you misread my post.. Their requirements are the same as zfs asks... so probably not that over the top.. Yea, misread that one. What I read and what was in my head two different things. Quote Link to comment
opentoe Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I don't have a very high upload speed, I think it caps out around 30-40Mbps and after I added that extra 40GB to Crashplan the upload time indicates 2.1 years. Too funny. I think I'll stick to my couple terabytes that I have up there now. Not very practical in my case. The users that have 10+ TB on Crashplan, what kind up upload speeds do you have and how long did it take to complete that initial upload? Quote Link to comment
Helmonder Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I don't have a very high upload speed, I think it caps out around 30-40Mbps and after I added that extra 40GB to Crashplan the upload time indicates 2.1 years. Too funny. I think I'll stick to my couple terabytes that I have up there now. Not very practical in my case. The users that have 10+ TB on Crashplan, what kind up upload speeds do you have and how long did it take to complete that initial upload? I use crashplan but I backup to a secundairy unraid server.. So not to their cloud.. I also tried uploading to their cloud but that is totally unpracticle... Quote Link to comment
UntouchedWagons Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 I installed the update, adjusted the webui as specified then my container disappeared from the containers list. I just remade the container but that was weird. I really like that I can manage CrashPlan through a web interface that's really cool. Quote Link to comment
PhilDG Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 All of a sudden, I'm now getting the message that crashplan cannot connect to the backup engine this morning. I have tried re-starting the docker, and then tried to force an update. Crashplan is at 4.6 and looking at the website, the engine is connecting to the cloud and backup up. Does anyone know if the engine version has changed again as this is often the issue - my desktop version is running 4.6 locally and connects to it's backup engine - it's just using novnc that cannot connect. Cancel that - I restarted the server and we're back in action Quote Link to comment
Helmonder Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 All of a sudden, I'm now getting the message that crashplan cannot connect to the backup engine this morning. I have tried re-starting the docker, and then tried to force an update. Crashplan is at 4.6 and looking at the website, the engine is connecting to the cloud and backup up. Does anyone know if the engine version has changed again as this is often the issue - my desktop version is running 4.6 locally and connects to it's backup engine - it's just using novnc that cannot connect. Cancel that - I restarted the server and we're back in action Do you use chrome ? It works very badly with vnc.. try with Edge, IE or firefox... Quote Link to comment
PhilDG Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 I do use chrome - didn't realise it was an issue - am back to normal now thanks Quote Link to comment
kenshinx34 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 I'm going to ask a dumb question that I couldn't find the answer to anywhere, but I'm sure exists. Feel feel to just point me to a link. Why should we put the docker setup on the cache drive? Is it a performance reason (faster speeds)? Is it so we aren't constantly spinning up and down multiple drives in the array? Is it so we don't constantly write data to the disk & parity? Is there any harm in putting in on the array? If we do use a cache drive what's the risk of the cache dying with the docker/crashplan data on it? Do you automatically have the cache set to backup to your array at night? Again, I apologize if this has been asked before. I just would like to understand a bit better the proper use of the cache drive before I sacrifice a sata port for cache disk. -Eric Quote Link to comment
Helmonder Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 performance with a cache drive pool there is no higher risk on data loss then within the array. Quote Link to comment
trurl Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 ...Is it a performance reason (faster speeds)? Is it so we aren't constantly spinning up and down multiple drives in the array? Is it so we don't constantly write data to the disk & parity? All the above. I back up mine once a week even though I have cache pool. Your docker.img doesn't really need to be backed up, just the appdata. The dockers themselves can be reinstalled from your templates. Quote Link to comment
kenshinx34 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If I really don't want to add a cache, is it necessary? or am I fine just doing it to the normal array and just lose the speed and performance gains? Quote Link to comment
trurl Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 The data drive plus parity will constantly spin. Quote Link to comment
Helmonder Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If I really don't want to add a cache, is it necessary? or am I fine just doing it to the normal array and just lose the speed and performance gains? You can work fine without cache drive.. Quote Link to comment
slizz Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 I keep getting this error when I try to install the desktop. Are the files gone or the server down? root@localhost:# /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/scripts/docker run -d --name="CrashPlan-Desktop" --net="bridge" -e TZ="America/New_York" -p 3389:3389/tcp --volumes-from CrashPlan gfjardim/crashplan-desktop Unable to find image 'gfjardim/crashplan-desktop:latest' locally Pulling repository gfjardim/crashplan-desktop Error: image gfjardim/crashplan-desktop:latest not found The command failed. Quote Link to comment
Bjonness406 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 I keep getting this error when I try to install the desktop. Are the files gone or the server down? root@localhost:# /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/scripts/docker run -d --name="CrashPlan-Desktop" --net="bridge" -e TZ="America/New_York" -p 3389:3389/tcp --volumes-from CrashPlan gfjardim/crashplan-desktop Unable to find image 'gfjardim/crashplan-desktop:latest' locally Pulling repository gfjardim/crashplan-desktop Error: image gfjardim/crashplan-desktop:latest not found The command failed. It is a docker hub issue. http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=42148.msg458415#msg458415 Edit: Whoops, you are not supposed to install the desktop version anymore like Helmonder says Quote Link to comment
Dephcon Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 I'm also having issues with this 4.6.0 update. Some times I lose connectivity so I restart the container and it revers back to the previous version, which it auto updates again and then I lose VNC. This has just been happening recently, had no issues before. Quote Link to comment
Helmonder Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 I think that is correct... the desktop container is depreciated, you should use the combined version... There is no need for the seperate desktop docker, the gui is now integrated in the basic version. gfjardim/crashplan:latest Quote Link to comment
slizz Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 When trying to update to the newest version of Crashplan I get the following warning. Everything was working until this and I am able to install other docker apps. What is up with this? Warning: DOMDocument::load(): EntityRef: expecting ';' in /var/lib/docker/unraid/templates-community-apps/249.xml, line: 5 in /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/include/CreateDocker.php on line 379 Warning: DOMDocument::load(): EntityRef: expecting ';' in /var/lib/docker/unraid/templates-community-apps/249.xml, line: 5 in /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/include/CreateDocker.php on line 379 Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 When trying to update to the newest version of Crashplan I get the following warning. Everything was working until this and I am able to install other docker apps. What is up with this? Warning: DOMDocument::load(): EntityRef: expecting ';' in /var/lib/docker/unraid/templates-community-apps/249.xml, line: 5 in /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/include/CreateDocker.php on line 379 Warning: DOMDocument::load(): EntityRef: expecting ';' in /var/lib/docker/unraid/templates-community-apps/249.xml, line: 5 in /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/include/CreateDocker.php on line 379 what version of CA? Quote Link to comment
slizz Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 what version of CA? The wrong one Thanks, that's all I needed. Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 what version of CA? The wrong one Thanks, that's all I needed. Yeah, a month or so ago CA needed to be updated to handle a change in CP Quote Link to comment
slizz Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 I am always impressed but unifying the two apps is AWESOME. I can't believe how much better this OS gets every day. Thanks to all involved. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.