I've opened up Github Discussions to further discuss Jailmaker.
Last active
April 9, 2024 07:20
-
-
Save Jip-Hop/4704ba4aa87c99f342b2846ed7885a5d to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Persistent Debian 'jail' on TrueNAS SCALE to install software (docker-compose, portainer, podman, etc.) with full access to all files via bind mounts. Without modifying the host OS at all thanks to systemd-nspawn!
Now that would be annoying as jailmakr works perfectly, doesn't have the crappy IX routing that IX has inflicted on K3S and is simpler.
I might not uprgade for a while
I mean, by now we should all figure that Ix Systems is dead-set on SCALE being used their way or the highway, and non-commercial users are simply a pool of free beta testers for them, so if you hate how they handle apps - and it is dumb, no two ways about it - then best case use it as a simple, dumb fileserver, or leave it. Time to move on from the AIO idea.
You want to know what really doesn’t make sense about this, they are using K3S as the platform to scale your app server requirements . I don’t see many enterprises using that for their app servers. Also note that it is called TrueNAS and not TrueApp, they are shoe horning application enterprise server requirements into an enterprise file server.
It only doesn't make sense because we're missing context. Likely it is as simple as: Ix Systems, being a for-profit business in a tough market (there's no money in storage hardware sales except at scale, so you have to differentiate with software these days), is trying to better define the space they are in so they can expand, and based on (presumably) their own internal market research concluded this is the way to go. Will it work or not? Does it make sense outside of Ix Systems? Who knows? It doesn't matter.
Folks like us are their field beta testers, more or less. Heck they aren't even subtle about that, their Enterprise marketing highlights how many Truenas (and SCALE) users there are, etc. We get a decent fileserver and whatever else they want to throw on top of it but let's not be under any illusion that they really care how any of us want to use the system. If we aren't paying for it then we are the product simple as that.
I'd like to give a more positive notion into this discussion. Yes, iX, at the moment, is presumably trying to contain their user base inside their newly build ecosystem, which happen to be a catalogue of k8s apps. Nobody says that this is not gonna change in the future. It is just what they decided to do and it's their product, so that's the way it is. BUT, they have a over a decade long track record of changing their product according to what the community wants and needs. See i. e. the change from FreeBSD warden jails to iocage. Every time a "breaking" change was introduced, it lead to some kind of "backlash" in the Forums, later also on reddit. But over time everybody agreed that it was for the better. And they still have a huge list of stuff users want and I'm convinced they are looking into it. Though, at the end of the day we have the great pleasure of using their product for free and they still need to pay staff. So I'm pledging for this: we vote the according JIRA-Tickets with the features we want to see and we further voice our constructive criticism here, in the forums, on Discord and on (reddit maybe not anymore).
For me, honestly it just became way too much effort to keep on "Fixing" and finding work-arounds on their updates. I want to use Docker, I want to use VM's, I want to use ZFS and I want to use shares.
TrueNAS can no longer fulfill these needs for me without constant fighting, so I gave up. I have reinstalled Proxmox on my box, installed Docker Natively, and setup my ZFS storage. I just need to add in Shares via SMB and NFS with config files. Then a cronjob to do snapshots and replication. Is it a pain that it is not gui, sure, but end of the day is that it works and I have no worries that a single point update will kill everything.
I am done with TrueNAS... If I want it, I will go to TrueNAS Core because Scale is a wast of time for Home User.
FWIW, there is another option if you're just looking for a clean Docker/Compose workspace on Scale and have a decent grasp on things. Basically I use Scale's "Launch Docker Image" to create a pod running Docker (technically a Docker-in-Docker image ala https://hub.docker.com/_/docker or similar -- I'm running one based on DIND some nVidia additions).
At that point there is a "safe" and isolated install of Docker running which can be used -- as Docker on the Scale host could be removed at any point. Using that Docker pod I just start up a container that gives me access and all the tools I would want on a "Docker host" (sshd, compose, code-server, cli tools, etc) which I then use to get access to my "Docker host".
Anyway, that's been working well since the first release of Scale with roughly 30 containers running. "Launch Docker Image" allows the base Docker install to have host networking and even nVidia passthrough (in addition to using it with official IX apps), so it's pretty flexible overall. Obviously in the App UI in Scale I just see my "Docker" app which is running the show. ;)
Not exactly the same as just an isolated host workspace, but quite flexible in the end. Just tossing it out there for those who might find it as an interesting option.
@Codelica I understand that docker is going away soon - so your solution (if I am correct) will no longer work
@aardvarkl that would be the Docker installation that is on the TrueNAS Scale host itself, which has always been in jeopardy. My solution was to run my own Docker install separately as a pod on Scale and use that instance for services. (It's similar to how TrueCharts does their docker-compose chart) So removal of Docker on the Scale host won't affect it. The only real danger would be if IX decides that people can't launch any of their own custom pods and must choose from a catalog. Could happen, but seems doubtful to me.
@Codelica would you try something for me. In one of your containers that has traceroute, just run a traceroute to a device on your LAN that isn't your router / gateway and post the result please?
@aardvarkl sure, although that will depend what networking driver the container uses (host, bridge, macvlan,etc).
But like this is in a host mode container pinging a LAN host:
and this is in a bridge mode container pinging a LAN host:
And .1 isn't your internet router?
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
…________________________________
From: James ***@***.***>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 3:50:18 PM
To: Codelica ***@***.***>
Cc: Mention ***@***.***>; Manual ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: Jip-Hop/README.md
@Codelica commented on this gist.
________________________________
@aardvarkl<https://github.com/aardvarkl> sure, although that will depend what networking driver the container uses (host, bridge, macvlan,etc).
But like this is in a host mode container pinging a LAN host:
[SeaShell Docker 2023-06-26 08-49-30]<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/386101/248842204-b3500427-481f-44dc-b48c-ec462f374de7.png>
and this is in a bridge mode container pinging a LAN host:
[email-tr]<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/386101/248842012-4674d433-233a-4a78-8b6d-c25503af2af3.png>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://gist.github.com/Jip-Hop/4704ba4aa87c99f342b2846ed7885a5d#gistcomment-4610820> or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJQGKPU4L3LYZHSTEAH54CTXNGOSXBFKMF2HI4TJMJ2XIZLTSKBKK5TBNR2WLJDHNFZXJJDOMFWWLK3UNBZGKYLEL52HS4DFQKSXMYLMOVS2I5DSOVS2I3TBNVS3W5DIOJSWCZC7OBQXE5DJMNUXAYLOORPWCY3UNF3GS5DZVRZXKYTKMVRXIX3UPFYGLK2HNFZXIQ3PNVWWK3TUUZ2G64DJMNZZDAVEOR4XAZNEM5UXG5FFOZQWY5LFVEYTEMBQGQ3DMOJYU52HE2LHM5SXFJTDOJSWC5DF>.
You are receiving this email because you were mentioned.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
@aardvarkl it's not. I use a class B at home (10.10.x.x). 10.10.100.1 is a desktop in my bedroom. My router is 10.10.0.1.
The reason I ask is a few months ago I tested exactly that scenario - due to a wierd issue I was experiencing.
I found that all traffic leaving the container was going to the default gateway and from there being diverted back to the LAN.
I was running Policy Based Routing on my router which was diverting the traffic out of a VPN even when it was destined to the LAN which was initially puzzling, and then annoying even if easy enough to get around.
At the moment I cannot find a suitable container that has traceroute in (the one I used to use was Heimdall - but that no longer has traceroute inbuilt)
@aardvarkl that does sound odd. in the end you do have some control over the network side of things though, especially if you have an extra interface on your Scale box. I attach 2 interfaces to my main Docker/DIND container, one of which is directly LAN connected with static IP. That will route LAN traffic directly using that interface. If I want to route Internet traffic out that interface also (vs Scale's default interface) then it would take something like a ip route change default via 10.10.0.1 dev net1 to move it from using eth0 (Scale's) by default.
But what you're describing sounds like it doesn't have a direct route for the LAN. Would probably take an ip route list in the main Docker/DIND container to see what it's thinking.
It is / was an IX bug. All traffic leaving a K3S container (from Truecharts or IX) that I tested was going to the default gateway, even if on-net and relying on the GW to redirect back to the LAN. IX declined to accept this as a bug saying that this was working correctly. We had something of an argument during which it was agreed that one of us didn't know what the other was talking about when it came to routing behaviour
A Traceroute went as follows:
As far as I am aware thats still going on - but I cannot test for it atm as I cannot find a container that has traceroute any longer (not that I have tried them all and in fact don't use many any longer) and I don't feel like collecting traffic at the firewall.
Jailmaker routes properly, allows me access to the entire hardware of the host and does so simply with less overhead as far as I can tell. Long may it continue (@Jip-Hop )
That does sound crazy. I don't want to litter this gist, and can't say I fully understand your configuration, but that's definitely not what I'm seeing. Just to confirm I pulled up a Web shell session in Scale for my "IX Official" Plex container. Then did an apt-get update && apt-get install traceroute net-tools and checked traceroute and routing:
So either that was resolved (I'm on the latest Scale) or there is some other routing issue at play there.
are there PM's in github? IF you would like to take this offline / elsewhere
cos I am seeing - when I duiplicate what you have done - the same odd behaviour. I would love this to be a configuration issue
@aardvarkl Github doesn't but I'm Codelica on Discord and on the TrueNAS community there also.
and I am Confused on TN on Discord - I think I have sent you a request
At that point there is a "safe" and isolated install of Docker running which can be used
can you define safe? If you add an external interface is any network traffic to/from the Docker going through that interface or is there still shared network resources of the host?
can you define safe? If you add an external interface is any network traffic to/from the Docker going through that interface or is there still shared network resources of the host?
By safe I mean if IX decides to remove Docker from their base Scale host install (like they going to do I believe) and just keep k3s/containerd, my install of Docker (running under their system) shouldn't be affected. As it's really no different than any other custom container running. So unless they do away with all custom containers, leaving only installs from app catalogs, it should be fine. That would be extreme IMO, and even then I guess it could be done by creating a catalog and config, etc -- but would be a pain.
As far as networking goes, adding other interfaces just gives flexibility. Basically I wanted my Docker apps with their own interface (leaving NAS & Plex stuff alone on my main 10G interface). So I gave it one interface on the LAN one one that's a private network for internal service backends for other machines (dbs, message bus, etc) as I do dev work. Both show (net1, net2) in the docker container with local routes to their subnets. So local traffic from Docker apps to the LAN uses net1 for example. But by default the default internet route would be the eth0 interface that the custom container provides via k3s. But that can be changed by just changing the default route within the Docker container to point to my gateway off net1 for example.
Anyway, I have messages from you guys on Discord so we can continue there. : )
I think it makes more sense now to continue the discussion over here:
https://github.com/Jip-Hop/jailmaker/discussions
😄
Does any of you use jailmaker alongside Apps? Please let me know about your experience in this poll in order to support this pull request.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
wow... Good thing I am busy converting back to Proxmox for vm/container needs and will be running TrueNAS as a VM in that. For the little bit of VM's i was doing it just became too much hassle fighting Truenas imho. Now it is being relegated to ONLY a file server.