brisimmons105 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Just saw the update was available via the docker and went ahead and updated. No errors during the install, but my plex server isn't showing up anymore. Any suggestions? The docker is running, but no plex server. EDIT: Seems something happened with permissions on the update. It's working once I changed the owner to nobody:users. Quote Link to comment
binhex Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Is it worth clarifying the official/support status of this repo. i.e. unlike every other repo if they dont work can licensed users raise an email ticket? The repo is fully supported (as are the containers we are adding). However, support is limited to getting the container running and accessible, not configuring Plex from within it. We also do not yet support migrating to this container from a Plugin. Some may be able to get that to work, but we do not have a step-by-step guide on how to do it at this point. I would suggest the OP is updated to reflect this then as this sets this repo above all others Or below all others :-) I think most devs here will support basic configuration of the application running, or am I being too kind? ;-) Quote Link to comment
Furby8704 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Just saw the update was available via the docker and went ahead and updated. No errors during the install, but my plex server isn't showing up anymore. Any suggestions? The docker is running, but no plex server. EDIT: Seems something happened with permissions on the update. It's working once I changed the owner to nobody:users. thanks for the tip. my permissions also changed to daapd:users. took about 30 min to get all files back to nobody:users via terminal everything is back up! Quote Link to comment
Bigdady92 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Was there any update as to what the official base image we are building all our docker images off of would be in order to make them 'official'? Quote Link to comment
Kode Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Was there any update as to what the official base image we are building all our docker images off of would be in order to make them 'official'? As I understand it no 3rd party dockers are "official" just the ones created and maintained by limetech themselves. Quote Link to comment
Bigdady92 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Was there any update as to what the official base image we are building all our docker images off of would be in order to make them 'official'? As I understand it no 3rd party dockers are "official" just the ones created and maintained by limetech themselves. There was a thread going on that talked about using phusion (something like that) as the base image to create docker images off of. In this way we had a standard 'base' to start from so everyone wasn't using this image or that image. This is the thread in question: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=33922.0 Quote Link to comment
Kode Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Well from what I have read most people use Phusion as a base whereas binhex uses something else (Arch i think) Quote Link to comment
Bigdady92 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Well from what I have read most people use Phusion as a base whereas binhex uses something else (Arch i think) Hence my asking if LT has picked one or the other. Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Well from what I have read most people use Phusion as a base whereas binhex uses something else (Arch i think) Hence my asking if LT has picked one or the other. The choice of a base OS is pretty much immaterial. Some authors prefer one or the other. Doesn't make it right or wrong. The worst thing that happens is a little bit of extra resources used by having multiple containers using multiple base OS Quote Link to comment
sparklyballs Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Well from what I have read most people use Phusion as a base whereas binhex uses something else (Arch i think) Hence my asking if LT has picked one or the other. The choice of a base OS is pretty much immaterial. Some authors prefer one or the other. Doesn't make it right or wrong. The worst thing that happens is a little bit of extra resources used by having multiple containers using multiple base OS i tend to build exclusively with phusion, the default repos can sometimes leave a little to be desired and sometimes the runit daemon is a little skittish but on the whole it's pretty good. Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Phusion is what we are using for now until we see a reason to change. This is ultimately a detail that end-users shouldn't have to worry about. Whatever base image we choose to use will automatically be pulled as a layer when the first container is added that needs it. In addition, I use many different containers from different authors, (including binhex). I don't really care what the maintainer's preference is for any particular app because again, it will be pulled automatically. In the grand scheme of things, the amount of storage used by multiple base images for different containers is still so small that it really isn't a big deal. Authors should use whatever base image they like and are comfortable with as it is their work. Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think that LT's templates should have a /Media (or something similar) container path included by default (mapped to nothing). That way, dockerMan will refuse to install the app until the user actually maps that path to a share. Will lower the support required for people who just blindly go ahead and click add container expecting it to work out of the box. Quote Link to comment
CHBMB Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think that LT's templates should have a /Media (or something similar) container path included by default (mapped to nothing). That way, dockerMan will refuse to install the app until the user actually maps that path to a share. Will lower the support required for people who just blindly go ahead and click add container expecting it to work out of the box. Can you make it removable though? I can't stand it when there are mappings defined that I can't remove. Doesn't fit in with my OCD very well. Although it's no real big issue to add my own and just leave the predefined one empty/unused. Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think that LT's templates should have a /Media (or something similar) container path included by default (mapped to nothing). That way, dockerMan will refuse to install the app until the user actually maps that path to a share. Will lower the support required for people who just blindly go ahead and click add container expecting it to work out of the box. Can you make it removable though? I can't stand it when there are mappings defined that I can't remove. Doesn't fit in with my OCD very well. Although it's no real big issue to add my own and just leave the predefined one empty/unused. Nope... You're right there... You can't delete a predefined volume, and anything that's predefined has to be mapped. Quote Link to comment
sparklyballs Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think that LT's templates should have a /Media (or something similar) container path included by default (mapped to nothing). That way, dockerMan will refuse to install the app until the user actually maps that path to a share. Will lower the support required for people who just blindly go ahead and click add container expecting it to work out of the box. Can you make it removable though? I can't stand it when there are mappings defined that I can't remove. Doesn't fit in with my OCD very well. Although it's no real big issue to add my own and just leave the predefined one empty/unused. Nope... You're right there... You can't delete a predefined volume, and anything that's predefined has to be mapped. you can when editing an existing container... Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think that LT's templates should have a /Media (or something similar) container path included by default (mapped to nothing). That way, dockerMan will refuse to install the app until the user actually maps that path to a share. Will lower the support required for people who just blindly go ahead and click add container expecting it to work out of the box. Can you make it removable though? I can't stand it when there are mappings defined that I can't remove. Doesn't fit in with my OCD very well. Although it's no real big issue to add my own and just leave the predefined one empty/unused. Nope... You're right there... You can't delete a predefined volume, and anything that's predefined has to be mapped. you can when editing an existing container... PITA. Have to add it to remove the line. Quote Link to comment
Datapotomus Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Are there any plans on you guys putting making crashplan available through the limetech templates? I saw that there is a repo, but it doesn't look like it has been published to the hub yet. Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Are there any plans on you guys putting making crashplan available through the limetech templates? I saw that there is a repo, but it doesn't look like it has been published to the hub yet. Correct. It is still undergoing some testing prior to being made available. Quote Link to comment
Dimtar Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Are there any plans on you guys putting making crashplan available through the limetech templates? I saw that there is a repo, but it doesn't look like it has been published to the hub yet. Correct. It is still undergoing some testing prior to being made available. So keen, thanks team. Quote Link to comment
JimPhreak Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Anyway to roll back the Limetech Plex Media Server docker to 0.9.12.3 since 0.9.12.4 has the DirectPlay bug? Quote Link to comment
esvinson Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Anyway to roll back the Limetech Plex Media Server docker to 0.9.12.3 since 0.9.12.4 has the DirectPlay bug? If you switch to the Needo/plex docker image you could add a VERSION variable and set it to 0.9.12.3 Quote Link to comment
JimPhreak Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Anyway to roll back the Limetech Plex Media Server docker to 0.9.12.3 since 0.9.12.4 has the DirectPlay bug? If you switch to the Needo/plex docker image you could add a VERSION variable and set it to 0.9.12.3 I just tried that but I get errors in the docker log about permission denied to the plugin logs and the server never fully starts. So looks like I need to wait for Plex to release a new version fixing this bug. Quote Link to comment
hackztor Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 They said it just shows direct play but still transcodes so it is more of an annoyance. Anyway to roll back the Limetech Plex Media Server docker to 0.9.12.3 since 0.9.12.4 has the DirectPlay bug? If you switch to the Needo/plex docker image you could add a VERSION variable and set it to 0.9.12.3 Quote Link to comment
JimPhreak Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 They said it just shows direct play but still transcodes so it is more of an annoyance. Anyway to roll back the Limetech Plex Media Server docker to 0.9.12.3 since 0.9.12.4 has the DirectPlay bug? If you switch to the Needo/plex docker image you could add a VERSION variable and set it to 0.9.12.3 Yea I'm OCD about that kind of stuff so it was bothering me . I switched back to 0.9.12.3 and I'm all good now. Quote Link to comment
wgstarks Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 It was pointed out to me in another thread that LT's Plex docker cannot be upgraded to PlexPass. Is this only a temporary situation? I've only been using Plex for a short time, but I expect I will be upgrading in the next few months and I don't want to waste a lot of effort on customizations only to have to start over when I upgrade. I'm sure LT has their reasons for not supporting the paid version. I'm hoping plans are in the works to change this. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Posted by SpaceInvaderOne,
4 reactions
Go to this post
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.