gfjardim syncthing and dropbox containers


Recommended Posts

I have an issue with these two containers in that they launch two processes of their application. The Dropbox one will be fine for a while and then after about a week it will suddenly have two processes running. I have to restart the dropbox one to have it go back to one instance.

 

Now I have just tried syncthing and it launches two instances right away:

ps ax | grep syncthing
21369 ?        Ss     0:00 runsv syncthing
21371 ?        Sl     0:00 /opt/syncthing/syncthing -home=/config -gui-address=https://0.0.0.0:8080
21390 ?        Sl     0:04 /opt/syncthing/syncthing -home=/config -gui-address=https://0.0.0.0:8080
21489 pts/1    R+     0:00 grep syncthing

 

The log continually scrolls this over and over while the syncthing docker is running:

[monitor] 09:04:56 INFO: Starting syncthing
[HJZNB] 09:04:58 INFO: syncthing v0.11.3 (go1.4.2 linux-amd64 default) unknown-user@syncthing-builder 2015-05-10 12:59:12 UTC
[HJZNB] 09:04:58 INFO: My ID: HJZNBXM-3QJFEAS-RU55XFC-6HOWCU5-ZOZRSMR-Z254YWJ-ZM2XC4R-R4IQUAS
[HJZNB] 09:04:58 INFO: Database block cache capacity 56976 KiB
[HJZNB] 09:04:58 FATAL: Cannot open database: resource temporarily unavailable - Is another copy of Syncthing already running?
[monitor] 09:04:58 INFO: Syncthing exited: exit status 1

 

Is there something wrong with these two dockers? Or is there something about docker I am doing wrong?

 

Also, upnp doesn't seem to work in any of the dockers I have tried. Is this just the way it is?

Link to comment

Oh well, I think I'm done with the gfjardim dockers. I have tried three of them and they all have problems.

-syncthing - will run an auto update of its self and then constantly complain about multiple instances running. These dockers don't seem to be designed to know when syncthing restarts its self. It will also fail to set upnp routes on my router (something practically required for this type of service to work) using the default bridge mode - needs to be changed to host.

-dropbox - will start throwing errors of multiple dropbox instances running after a week or so. Maybe this is the same problem the syncthing one has, possibly an update and restart.

-btsync - same issue with upnp in that I have to change the default bridge net to host for it to work.

 

So far I am not impressed with these dockers as they don't have sane defaults and do not work properly. It appears maybe the maintainer doesn't even run them? I have posted an issue in the maintainer's thread as well and been completely ignored.

 

I know this may not be possible as it is community run, but having a semi-official repo where people have actually tested a docker and confirmed it has no issues would be a nice thing to have. I would be willing to test.

 

For now, I am having to create my own docker of these as the available ones are unacceptable.

Link to comment

Oh well, I think I'm done with the gfjardim dockers. I have tried three of them and they all have problems.

-syncthing - will run an auto update of its self and then constantly complain about multiple instances running. These dockers don't seem to be designed to know when syncthing restarts its self. It will also fail to set upnp routes on my router (something practically required for this type of service to work) using the default bridge mode - needs to be changed to host.

-dropbox - will start throwing errors of multiple dropbox instances running after a week or so. Maybe this is the same problem the syncthing one has, possibly an update and restart.

-btsync - same issue with upnp in that I have to change the default bridge net to host for it to work.

 

So far I am not impressed with these dockers as they don't have sane defaults and do not work properly. It appears maybe the maintainer doesn't even run them? I have posted an issue in the maintainer's thread as well and been completely ignored.

 

I know this may not be possible as it is community run, but having a semi-official repo where people have actually tested a docker and confirmed it has no issues would be a nice thing to have. I would be willing to test.

 

For now, I am having to create my own docker of these as the available ones are unacceptable.

 

Perhaps it would be worth posting in gfjardim's support thread.

 

Reckon it would be easier to help fix the problems with the existing container than duplicate a lot of work, plus may help a few others too.  If you do create your own containers then please post them here to benefit the rest of the community.

Link to comment

...For now, I am having to create my own docker of these as the available ones are unacceptable.

If you are successful, be sure to share with the community.

I definitely will! Learning it has been interesting.

Oh well, I think I'm done with the gfjardim dockers. I have tried three of them and they all have problems.

-syncthing - will run an auto update of its self and then constantly complain about multiple instances running. These dockers don't seem to be designed to know when syncthing restarts its self. It will also fail to set upnp routes on my router (something practically required for this type of service to work) using the default bridge mode - needs to be changed to host.

-dropbox - will start throwing errors of multiple dropbox instances running after a week or so. Maybe this is the same problem the syncthing one has, possibly an update and restart.

-btsync - same issue with upnp in that I have to change the default bridge net to host for it to work.

 

So far I am not impressed with these dockers as they don't have sane defaults and do not work properly. It appears maybe the maintainer doesn't even run them? I have posted an issue in the maintainer's thread as well and been completely ignored.

 

I know this may not be possible as it is community run, but having a semi-official repo where people have actually tested a docker and confirmed it has no issues would be a nice thing to have. I would be willing to test.

 

For now, I am having to create my own docker of these as the available ones are unacceptable.

 

Perhaps it would be worth posting in gfjardim's support thread.

 

Reckon it would be easier to help fix the problems with the existing container than duplicate a lot of work, plus may help a few others too.  If you do create your own containers then please post them here to benefit the rest of the community.

That was where I posted an earlier issue with one of his dockers and was completely ignored (he even posted directly after it). Oh well.

Looking at the docker stuff and granted I am still new at it, I do not like the phusion base he is using. Each docker seems to launch a bunch of un-needed things like cron, syslog, some my_init thing - all run as root. my_init, it seems, is part of the phusion base and I probably don't understand the need for it yet as I only want to run one simple app per container at the moment. So I made my own arch base. It would be really nice if there were a couple of "unraid" bases to choose from(ie, an arch, ubuntu, and slack base). Maybe a couple of official ones so there is still choice. But I think a base is a base so it probably doesn't matter.

 

If I am able to get mine working flawlessly I will of course share it.

Link to comment

That was where I posted an earlier issue with one of his dockers and was completely ignored (he even posted directly after it). Oh well.

Looking at the docker stuff and granted I am still new at it, I do not like the phusion base he is using. Each docker seems to launch a bunch of un-needed things like cron, syslog, some my_init thing - all run as root. my_init, it seems, is part of the phusion base and I probably don't understand the need for it yet as I only want to run one simple app per container at the moment. If I am able to get mine working flawlessly I will of course share it.

 

Well there's always room for alternatives, needo's and binhex's containers spring to mind, one Phusion based and the other Arch, the other option you could consider is the docker search plugin and see if there is anything on the docker registry which suits your needs.

Link to comment

That was where I posted an earlier issue with one of his dockers and was completely ignored (he even posted directly after it).

 

This is the first time you post data suitable to debug. You asked me about a problem I wasn't aware of, what did you expect me to do? And that was about Dropbox, not Syncthing or BTSync.

 

UPnP is not a translatable protocol, no bridge routes can pass it, so or you do the safer and correct way (manually open the ports on your router) or you go lazy and run it as host and rely on UPnP, your choice.

 

Link to comment

needs to be changed to host.

 

you do know you can change that yourself in the docker template, instead of relying on docker authors to anticipate everyone's usage ?

 

Yes that is what I had to do. I do not expect the authors to anticipate everyone's usage, but I do expect the defaults to be set properly for the application to fully work. I was speaking in a user point of view in that they would expect the defaults to allow the application to work properly, not to have to know to change the settings from defaults. Or in the least an explanation in the description with any gotchas.

 

That was where I posted an earlier issue with one of his dockers and was completely ignored (he even posted directly after it).

 

This is the first time you post data suitable to debug. You asked me about a problem I wasn't aware of, what did you expect me to do? And that was about Dropbox, not Syncthing or BTSync.

 

UPnP is not a translatable protocol, no bridge routes can pass it, so or you do the safer and correct way (manually open the ports on your router) or you go lazy and run it as host and rely on UPnP, your choice.

 

 

I'm always happy to respond to a request for debug information. Until then, I usually assume I have done something wrong if no one else has reported it.

Telling me I am doing it incorrect or being lazy is a little childish don't you think? Upnp may be the lazy way but it is extremely useful when you have many devices or simply do not have access to the router's config. But telling someone they should not be using it is assuming a little too much.

Link to comment

needs to be changed to host.

 

you do know you can change that yourself in the docker template, instead of relying on docker authors to anticipate everyone's usage ?

 

Yes that is what I had to do. I do not expect the authors to anticipate everyone's usage, but I do expect the defaults to be set properly for the application to fully work. I was speaking in a user point of view in that they would expect the defaults to allow the application to work properly, not to have to know to change the settings from defaults. Or in the least an explanation in the description with any gotchas.

 

That was where I posted an earlier issue with one of his dockers and was completely ignored (he even posted directly after it).

 

This is the first time you post data suitable to debug. You asked me about a problem I wasn't aware of, what did you expect me to do? And that was about Dropbox, not Syncthing or BTSync.

 

UPnP is not a translatable protocol, no bridge routes can pass it, so or you do the safer and correct way (manually open the ports on your router) or you go lazy and run it as host and rely on UPnP, your choice.

 

 

I'm always happy to respond to a request for debug information. Until then, I usually assume I have done something wrong if no one else has reported it.

Telling me I am doing it incorrect or being lazy is a little childish don't you think? Upnp may be the lazy way but it is extremely useful when you have many devices or simply do not have access to the router's config. But telling someone they should not be using it is assuming a little too much.

 

screaming something is unacceptable because it doesn't fit YOUR PARTICULAR setup is not at all childish..............

Link to comment

 

Telling me I am doing it incorrect or being lazy is a little childish don't you think? Upnp may be the lazy way but it is extremely useful when you have many devices or simply do not have access to the router's config. But telling someone they should not be using it is assuming a little too much.

 

http://www.howtogeek.com/122487/htg-explains-is-upnp-a-security-risk/

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/02/05/upnp-flaws-turn-millions-of-firewalls-into-doorstops/

 

I can keep posting them, the bottom line is UPnP is VERY UNSAFE. That being said, I defaulted my containers to bridge thinking on security, not easiness of use. You can always use host, but it's not the secure way to do it.

Link to comment

Ok, first things first; did some inspection on Syncthing and it spawn its process among two pids, so that's the correct behavior. Will update the container to use Supervisor, just in case.

 

Yeah I noticed that through further testing so it appears to be expected behavior. The multiple instances errors start happening when syncthing does it's auto-update. Checking processes after this happens and when the errors start in the log shows 4 instances of syncthing running with one (or maybe two) of them constantly dieing and getting re-spawned.

Link to comment

needs to be changed to host.

 

you do know you can change that yourself in the docker template, instead of relying on docker authors to anticipate everyone's usage ?

 

Yes that is what I had to do. I do not expect the authors to anticipate everyone's usage, but I do expect the defaults to be set properly for the application to fully work. I was speaking in a user point of view in that they would expect the defaults to allow the application to work properly, not to have to know to change the settings from defaults. Or in the least an explanation in the description with any gotchas.

 

That was where I posted an earlier issue with one of his dockers and was completely ignored (he even posted directly after it).

 

This is the first time you post data suitable to debug. You asked me about a problem I wasn't aware of, what did you expect me to do? And that was about Dropbox, not Syncthing or BTSync.

 

UPnP is not a translatable protocol, no bridge routes can pass it, so or you do the safer and correct way (manually open the ports on your router) or you go lazy and run it as host and rely on UPnP, your choice.

 

 

I'm always happy to respond to a request for debug information. Until then, I usually assume I have done something wrong if no one else has reported it.

Telling me I am doing it incorrect or being lazy is a little childish don't you think? Upnp may be the lazy way but it is extremely useful when you have many devices or simply do not have access to the router's config. But telling someone they should not be using it is assuming a little too much.

 

screaming something is unacceptable because it doesn't fit YOUR PARTICULAR setup is not at all childish..............

 

Sorry my frustration was so evident in my earlier posts. Spending a day messing with these dockers when I was assuming they would "just work" like the previous plugin system did before had its toll on me.

 

And yes, I believe a docker that starts spewing errors that multiple instances are running when the app performs an unattended update, and not informing the user of certain features not working by design is unacceptable. But this is from a user point of view.

 

Link to comment

The previous plugin system worked so well that it sometimes spawned support threads with over 100 pages. :o

 

 

dependency hell anybody ?

 

lol.....

 

Yeah, I admit that don't really agree with xamindar on that one. Plugins were one of my big reasons for moving to WHS2011 and dockers the main reason I came back to Unraid.  But it's a teething period and as with any software there will be issues. 

Link to comment

Ok, first things first; did some inspection on Syncthing and it spawn its process among two pids, so that's the correct behavior. Will update the container to use Supervisor, just in case.

 

Got mine working using supervisor and syncthing does the same exact thing when it updates its self. It seems strange that runit and supervisor can't figure out that it is already running before constantly spawning another instance - at least I think that's what is happening.

Link to comment

Ok, first things first; did some inspection on Syncthing and it spawn its process among two pids, so that's the correct behavior. Will update the container to use Supervisor, just in case.

 

Got mine working using supervisor and syncthing does the same exact thing when it updates its self. It seems strange that runit and supervisor can't figure out that it is already running before constantly spawning another instance - at least I think that's what is happening.

 

No it isn't. If you launch syncthing manually, it will spawn itself, nothing to do with supervisor. Will test syncthing a few days and release an update

Link to comment

Hi,

a quick question to gfjardim about Syncthing docker..

i wanna give a try to this docker, but to me it looks old version(0.9). according to https://syncthing.net/ 0.11 is current..

are this true or docker updates something automatically? :)

 

Well, before xamindar's complaint, I thought the auto update was working, so I stopped updating the container. I will release an update soon, if you can wait until there....

Link to comment

Hi,

a quick question to gfjardim about Syncthing docker..

i wanna give a try to this docker, but to me it looks old version(0.9). according to https://syncthing.net/ 0.11 is current..

are this true or docker updates something automatically? :)

 

Well, before xamindar's complaint, I thought the auto update was working, so I stopped updating the container. I will release an update soon, if you can wait until there....

 

no problems, i can wait for some time :)

Link to comment

Hi,

a quick question to gfjardim about Syncthing docker..

i wanna give a try to this docker, but to me it looks old version(0.9). according to https://syncthing.net/ 0.11 is current..

are this true or docker updates something automatically? :)

 

Well, before xamindar's complaint, I thought the auto update was working, so I stopped updating the container. I will release an update soon, if you can wait until there....

 

no problems, i can wait for some time :)

 

so i installed your current syncthing docker, and it upgraded to last version automatically for me :)

but cant start after upgrade, so manual start stop required and all is up and running..

looking to configure it.. any advice? i did not use syncthing before..

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.