Forum Cloudron Forum

I restricted functionality (no public view facility) in my AppsMonitor app so it works with 10.0.5. (Simpler prostate allowed path). Given the additional functionality I have added to AppsMonitor, the public page (conceived as a status page) may not be a good idea anyway, so I might remove it permanently anyway. Other than says to do a status page. Will think about it.

@james Well, looking at the logs, it’s actually running fine. Even though the UI dashboard looks stuck at 5%, I managed to successfully update it to version 10.0.5

The report itself is correct. I think the main issue is that Cloudron doesn't know the old IP address and even if it did it cannot remove it without user consent. Maybe user is re-using the IP for some other stuff and legitimately put it there.

@humpty Not just you, but usually if you refresh the page, it goes to 0, so probably a caching thing.

Hello @archos This is already fixed in the upcomming Cloudron udpate.

„ It's like he skipped GPT 2 - 5.4 And now he just found out but hasn't figured out the downside and awful architecture it comes up with“ I agree with this position and would vote against that feature request for now.

Interesting report. Another quirk of community packages. I wrote the whole backup logic with the assumption that backup fail was something we should fix. If the did fail, either it was some platform error or some external backup service error

Good point, I hadn't thought about the layer sharing. I measured it: an apt-get upgrade on top of cloudron/base:5.1.0 today is 136 packages and a 677 MB extra layer per image, so with 30 apps that really adds up. On top of 6.0.0 (5 days old) it's only 16 packages and 28 MB. So for my 7 own apps the per-app upgrade is fine, but for the whole catalog it clearly belongs in the base rather than in every app. If the dated bases (like node-base:24-20260920) get refreshed regularly and apps pick up the latest one when they're rebuilt, the sharing stays intact and the backlog never grows big. The numbers above also show that the older the base gets, the bigger both the security backlog and the upgrade layer become.

VPS (shared resource) is always a risk, but I only ever had one problem where claimed specs were not really available runtime (SSDNODES). Netcup is decent so you should get what you pay for. But if your Cloudron is "production" (meaning you rely on it for services), I would go for something more dedicated resource. My first destination is Hetzner Auctions. Interestingly their auctions are cheaper than their shared-resource VPS currently. They're pinched on RAM etc costs, but auction is still cheaper than VPS. My current Hetzner production cloudron is cheaper (60 euro) with much better specs than their cheapest dedicated auction (75 euro). But I think it's an industry thing, rather than a Hetzner thing.

Hello @loudlemur @LoudLemur said: Sorry for the noise, twice in one thread. No problem and I don't mind it at all. It is always good to exchange thoughts which leads to more knowledge for everyone and this also creates better and more stable software.