watchtower VS flood

Related: https://github.com/containrrr/watchtower

> if you're using the docker image, upgrades are a breeze. Just bump the tag on the image, redeploy, and you're done.

Or you could just run Watchtower beside it and it will automatically update your docker containers. https://github.com/containrrr/watchtower If you are OK with automated updates.

So i primarily use containers on my local machine walled off from the internet, so it's not a big concern for me. Watchtower [1] is popular among home server users too which automatically updates containers to the latest image.

For production uses I think companies generally build their own containers. They would have a common base linux container and build the other containers based off that with a typical CI/CD pipeline. So if glibc is patched, it's probably patched in the base container and the others are then rebuilt. You don't have to patch each container individually, just the base. Production also minimizes the scope of containers with nothing installed except what's necessary so they have few dependencies.

[1] https://github.com/containrrr/watchtower

You can use Watchtower (https://containrrr.dev/watchtower/) that solves problem of manual pulling on VPS.

I checked https://containrrr.dev/watchtower/ and Arguments, but I don't understand where to attach that using portainer.

Again, there are options to automate some of the burden here by using tools such as Watchtower.

Have you ever deployed a Docker app on a server, but everytime you push a new version of your image to a Docker registry you need to manually restart your app? If you want to automate this restarting, this blog post is for you! I am now going to show you how you can do this with literally 1 simple command using Watchtower!

Why bake libtransmission into the app instead of just using the transmission daemon's RPC?

What you've done actually makes it harder to use, because in order to configure any of transmission's settings (ports, connection/torrent connection limits, bandwith limits, etc) the user needs to dig around to find the transmission config folder and then manually edit JSON with a text editor - because your client doesn't expose any of transmissions numerous settings [1] to the user except for choosing the download folder.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to use this instead of Flood [2] or even old Transmission Web Control [3]

1: https://github.com/transmission/transmission/blob/main/docs/...

1: https://github.com/jesec/flood

2: https://github.com/ronggang/transmission-web-control

Only one that I'm aware of is Flood: https://github.com/jesec/flood

If you haven't seen the https://flood.js.org project before. It has subjectively a nicer ui and works with qbittorent.

You can install alternate web UIs very easy. I’m a big fan of Flood, which is mobile friendly: https://flood.js.org/

One note: I lean heavily on an API to manage it so I'd love to continue using flood, I tested qbittorrent with it briefly and it didn't go well.

You mean a torrent client? I’m using rTorrent with Flood (the new jesec fork that’s actually active) and it works brilliantly on mobile

https://flood.js.org/ ?

If it's just the web ui you're worried about perhaps look into installing Flood & see if it helps? It's going to be a better web ui overall. (I've never needed to use it personally but it's been recommended in the pat)

qbitorrent-nox with flood-ui

Impressive. But I dont get why they would rebuild the web client when there are existing options like: https://github.com/jesec/flood