watchtower VS tubearchivist

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!

holy hell I hadn't come across archivebox as of yet, I'll definitely be spinning this up this eve. Is the UI comfortable enough to use as a "bookmark manager"? just been setting up tubearchivist for essentially this purpose, wondering if ArchiveBox would essentially do the same

I'm using TubeArchivist to maintain this VERY large collection.

There appears to be a patch in Tubearchivest at https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist/issues/587

Personally, I use Tubearchivist.

There are others though.

https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist

I've been seeing TubeArchivist posted a lot recently.

It has been some time since the last release, but v0.4.0 is finally wrapped up. This brings a wide range of fixes and changes, particularly stability improvements, with our new file system naming convention, this should solve a bunch of previously unsolvable compatibility issues. I highly recommend reading the release notes carefully, as the filesystem migration could be a breaking change if you made changes manually there: https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist/releases/tag/v0.4.0

I saw this was a Django app so I dug around to look at their models. As far as I can tell this is all they have: https://github.com/tubearchivist/tubearchivist/blob/master/t... - just a `Account` model.

It looks like Django + SQLite is used for user accounts, but all other data storage happens in Elasticsearch.

It's an interesting design decision. I would have gone all-in on the database, and used SQLite FTS in place of Elasticsearch for simplicity, but that's my own personal favourite stack. Not saying their design is bad, just different.

Oh, so it is. I happen to run a TubeArchivist at home that grabs the videos and subtitles. Then I can search through the subtitle files for key phrases. I must have grabbed it while it was still public.

You probably want Tube Archivist. The only problem is that it’s naming convention doesn’t work with the Jellyfin YouTube Metadata Plugin.