Rock-on requests

I can look at adding not all, but most of Linuxserver.io as rock-ons.

It will take some time as I currently do no use rockstor as my NAS due to btrfs bugs.
Ill see what can be done in 2016.

Just getting started to RockStor but I am moving from my synology system to this and frequently use the following features. Some of them may already exist and I just haven’t discovered them yet.

I use mobile devices heavily and although I am comfortable at a linux command line, I don’t think its the best answer for day to day operations. So the following should have a consideration for that…

  • transmission (torrents) with RSS support
  • File Manager (web based file manager, mobile ui friendly)
  • syslog service (place to forward all of my syslogs)
  • two factor sign on support
  • Plex (of course) :slight_smile:
  • Virtual Servers (for setting up small websites)
  • Automatic IP blacklisting for failed logins
  • Amazon Drive Sync

Maybe it has been already requested by others, but would it be a big deal to modify the Rock-on views for “installed” and “all” so that the version of each rock-on program is being displayed?

Would this be a big deal to implement such a version display @Flyer (or whomever to direct)?

Thanks!

rutorrent docker

Hi @glenngould

:wink:

1 Like

I noticed that some of the rock-ons do not update to latest.
Would it make sense to add some indication what is the latest version or some update button if there is a newer?

I’ve tried to specify the version in the description when it’s static. There is usually a good reason why the version is locked. most recently I’ve been working on zoneminder and just got a 1.30. I submitted it as ZoneMinder-1.30 this time because it’s locked. We have a 1.29 version but 1.30 never ran well (hopefully it does now). I think if we name the rock-on with a version number for fixed version this makes sense. Also without in-place upgrades (like zoneminder in this case). If it can upgrade and be latest, it should be.

1 Like

I agree with fixed version in the name it should be static.
But in the case I described it just feels strange that we have to uninstall and reinstall to get the docker image upgrade. Also no visible info that there is a new version.

I would like to see a (send) router software in docker, like cloud router!

That would be bad ass! :slight_smile:

Someone made a fork of Sonarr for movies! https://radarr.video/

Edit: Playing with this one here (from ll.io): https://gist.github.com/alazare619/d060cb6070296b7ef045c34d0d526360

Seems to be working fine

1 Like

Teamspeak3 pullrequest added.
https://github.com/rockstor/rockon-registry/pull/87

2 Likes

I would like to see a Bacula server rock-on, however my own knowledge of Bacula is now very dated. I have drawn up some notes in the following issue:


But this would best be addressed by someone currently familiar with Bacula.

Also there appears to be no official docker images.

2 Likes

In discussions within my recently referenced “Add a bacula server rockon” @paulsmyth brought BareOS to my attention. So I have now opened an additional issue to address this:


Given I know nothing about this backup system I’m hoping to get feedback on the pros and cons but form an initial look it seem more favourable than bacula.
Please feel free to chip in on either issue so that we might get a more informed opinion going and possibly advise on how best it might be implemented as a Rock-on. There does seem to be more downloaded docker images available and this causes me to favour this over bacula.

Opinions Welcome as I think this kind of network backup solution would be a great addition to Rockstor. Just not a current user of either right now so difficult for me to advise.

Unfortunately there are again no official docker images.

2 Likes

Not really a request for rockon, just observation on futility of adding more backup rockons to the mix.

In terms of adding more rock-on’s for backup - there is a bit of a problem with docker setup: all instances are configured behind the NAT, and if your NAS machine sits behind the NAT (as you usually would have in any internal network) this results in VERY poor speed (predominantly because “double NATed” software has no physical means to punch holes in second NAT)

As an example I’ve tried every possible sync / backup on two server sitting within same lan (same addressing space as well) and since things on docker sit behind the NAT they were unable to discover each self in local network - resulting in pumping all data through external peer. With downlink of 120Mb and uplink of 40Mb we were getting maximum of 0.5Mb.

Now of course I accept that I might be wrong and this whole time I was setting it up wrong - so please point it out if you could get full wire throughput on local 1Gb lan (or even close to half of it) !

If ones data is not changing that often and there is not that much of it you can just let it very slowly do it’s job … but any frequently changing data is out of the picture

Letting images out of docker NAT sandbox will result in all of them having different IP’s and it will be harder to manage. Maybe creating a separate virtual interface per image - that way one could set static IP on it or would have knowledge if what DHCP have set up for it.

JHi, I’m looking for an Email Server best out of Rockons. Ist there any experience or thoughts about such a tool? Any proposals?

I’ve found the following which is free and for all platforms available, sounds promising at least from my side :grinning:

http://www.iredmail.org

Or

Or

It’s there, I just submitted a PR for it. I have zabbix agent also but didn’t submit that yet (I was trying to get it to send all the docker host info).

Tom

As we’ve now System Shell on the Web UI

how about adding also a web based file browser?

I remember https://extplorer.net/ from my time with OMV before Rockstor.

1 Like

Hi Roland,
giving you all a spoilers about development :

  • planned to add something like an “inline editor” over Rockstor custome scheduled tasks issue
  • planned to add a kind of browser/inline editor for Rock-ons (ex. user contributing new Rock-ons and pushing them directly from Rockstor with git help)

No current plan about “full” file browser, my opinion: if you can edit Rock-ons and custom scripts directly from WebUI, no more browsing/editing required (if you need it you can use nano / vim over System shell)

Open to suggestions :slight_smile:

Mirko

1 Like

Hi,

I want to request a import of the linuxserver.io rutorrent docker image. Is the possible?

https://hub.docker.com/r/linuxserver/rutorrent/

I’m happy to see that the number of available Rock-on programs is steadily increasing, but I think it is also getting to a point to modify/improve the list view itself to get it more user-friendly. Nothing urgent but necessary at least in my eyes :smile: