So I installed Portainer from the IX Apps

Apps and Virtualization
1

Some background first. I have 10 docker apps installed in TrueNAS from the IXApps catalog:
ClamAV, Filebrowser, nginx, plex, portainer,scrutiny,2*storj, syncthing & tdarr

I installed portainer and found the following:

  • A Stack for each container - labelled ix-“container name from TrueNAS”
  • 16 containers of which 6 are “exited - code 0”
  • The correct images (I do run a docker prune -a from time to time)
  • A Network definition per running container (take a close look at the screenshots below)
  • Vast numbers of unused volumes. Over 100 volumes in total of which 10 were in use

Frankly, it seems to me to be a bit of a mess.

Now I have my view of what should / shouldn’t be appearing and how things should / shouldn’t be done - but I wonder what others think looking at this.

For the record, I run these 10 containers directly on TrueNAS whilst I run another 20-30 in a systemd-nspawn ScaleJail running docker & portainer. I thought I would run up portainer as an IXApp just to see what happens and to see if migrating (away from the Jail) is a possibility or if I have to wait for Fangtooth and the new Jail implementation

Screenshots:

image
image2150×846 78.9 KB

image
image2130×1203 275 KB

image
image2136×849 108 KB

image
image2149×1040 157 KB

Volumes:
image
image2142×1077 238 KB

image
image2135×1186 300 KB

image
image2134×1188 301 KB

and on and on

2

Yes.

  • 16 containers of which 6 are “exited - code 0”

Yes. 10 containers for 10 apps, and six containers which perform one time tasks and then exit instead of sticking around using resources.

  • The correct images (I do run a docker prune -a from time to time)

Yes

  • A Network definition per running container (take a close look at the screenshots below)

This is normal for compose apps.

  • Vast numbers of unused volumes. Over 100 volumes in total of which 10 were in use

Yes. This could perhaps be handled better.