Nginx Proxy Manager VS docker

Why trafik over nginx for my modest needs, a couple docker hosts and a few dozen containers. I use https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/nginx-proxy-manager, would trafik provide a benefit on such a small scale?

I discovered these 3 amazing projects recently:

Cryptpad, essentially google docs/sheets/forms e2e encrypted. It does include collaboration. https://github.com/cryptpad/cryptpad

Immich, google photos self hostable, with share options https://github.com/immich-app/immich

Nginxproxymanager manages certificates and proxies to self hosted stuff through nginx https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/nginx-proxy-manager

Great self hosting stuff!

Nginx Proxy Manager

Take a look at NginxProxyManager. This would give you the opportunity to put everything in the form of service1.domain.com , service2.domain.com ,etc.

Prime example: Nginx Proxy Manager is often recommended in the sub. The latest minor release came with breaking changes (so already ignoring semver). I bet you many people were running on latest and then had broken stuff: https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/nginx-proxy-manager/releases/tag/v2.10.0

I started looking into how to make add dynamic IPs to NPM access lists. I came across a couple of GitHub issues (1, 2) on the topic. It looks like people have solved the problem, but not in a complete way without modifying the NPM docker image. I did not want to do that, so decided looking into writing a separate script.

Here is the (NPM) GitHub issue where the "fork of a fork" image came into existence (lepresidente/nginx-proxy-manager). It has some interesting discussions about the challenges of having NPM and CrowdSec coexist and cooperate.

Agree with this, myQ is such a dumpster fire. It needs to have an the ability to be managed over the local network instead of requiring the garage door and app connect to their server.

My very first experience with myQ was figuring out that their IP blocklist provider, brightcloud, blocks anything with the word "proxy" - including the default "it works" page for Nginx Proxy Manager [1]. And they have no way of overriding this to actually provide service if someone turns out to be a legitimate customer.

[1]: https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/nginx-proxy-manager/dis...

Edit: If you're using Nginx Proxy Manager there seems to be open PR for support for proxy protocol https://github.com/NginxProxyManager/nginx-proxy-manager/pull/1882 however in the comments there's a name of repository with this PR merged.

Am I better off using this container: https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud/

It looks like I'm not the only person who has faced this. apache-based images require buster, for instance, and some docker images that rely on Ruby face issues too (for example, I decided to try setting up Postal but it looks like it's facing the same issues).

If you look at the info on https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud, you'll see that you aught to be specifying at least one volume, so that you have the data you want to not disappear on restart, and can access config files.

Yes, and this is what L passed through as the env variables in the docker compose file, as the docs state: https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud

You can't map binaries from host to container like this. What you need is a custom Dockerfile that installs ffmpeg. https://github.com/nextcloud/docker/blob/master/.examples/dockerfiles/full/fpm/Dockerfile

A good example to start with is at https://github.com/nextcloud/docker/tree/master/.examples/docker-compose/insecure/postgres/apache

Nextcloud is free and open source. The easiest way to install it is via docker containers. nextcloud docker