Jump to content
eschultz

[support] limetech's docker repository

790 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post

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!

Share this post


Link to post

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'?

 

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Share this post


Link to post

Well from what I have read most people use Phusion as a base whereas binhex uses something else (Arch i think)

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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...

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Anyway to roll back the Limetech Plex Media Server docker to 0.9.12.3 since 0.9.12.4 has the DirectPlay bug?

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to 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.

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.