this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
161 points (98.8% liked)

Selfhosted

40083 readers
579 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Tried to use it, but I don’t want to move all of my data from my currently laid out folder/file structure into a docker container that I then need to backup/upgrade/feed/water/etc., especially when my grasp on docker containers is limited (at best) and I’m dealing with “production” data.

I wish the software worked like Immach; I could point it at a root folder and it would index everything with read only rights.

That, and I’m slightly worried that this iteration will stop being supported and it gets forked (again) which is great that it can be forked but I have no idea what would go into migrating data (see my limited docker knowledge from the first sentence).

[–] B0rax@feddit.de 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well you point the docker to some external data. You do never store the documents inside the docker. (Because it would get lost when it is updated)

It is comparable to the way Immich works.

[–] Antiochus@lemmy.one 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but their FAQ specifically says:

By default, your documents are stored inside the docker volume paperless_media. Docker manages this volume automatically for you.

It also says that documents are removed from the consumption directory, renamed, and put into a folder that you shouldn't modify.

And that's my problem with the project. I want to be able to keep my file name and organizational structure.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Have a look here: [https://github.com/paperless-ngx/paperless-ngx/blob/main/docker/compose/docker-compose.postgres.yml](paperless-ngx docker-compose.yml)

down under webserver: you change data:/usr/src/paperless/data to /path/to/where/you/wantorhave/your/files:/usr/src/paperless/data. Same for the media path and you're done. paperless now uses a folder on your machine instead of a volume. If you want to be clean you will then also remove the volume declaration at the bottom of the file.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

i think OP wants it to leave their current files alone. But Paperless doesn't work like that, it deletes the originals and arranges the files its own way.

[–] chaospatterns@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Paperless does support defining a folder structure that you can use to organize documents within that paperless media volume however you should treat it as read only.

OP could use this as a way to keep their desired folder structure as much as possible, but it would have to be separate from the consumption folder.

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I do want to leave my current files alone.

Note: 8 months later and I invested the time into setting up Immich instead. Much better return on time investment.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago

Ah OK, misunderstood that

[–] B0rax@feddit.de 4 points 8 months ago

It’s a docker volume. In this case it is managed by docker, but it is outside the container.

To have it save everything on your normal filesystem, it should be possible to just edit the docker compose file (I have not tried that)

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Bind mounts. Always use bind mounts for data you care about, otherwise the "managed by docker" volumes are fated to be forgotten.

It won't be your file structure as the file tree is managed by paperless, but at least using bind mounts you can easily navigate files and back them up independently or docker and paperless.

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

No idea what a bind mount is.

Is that supposed to be a line in the compose file?

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

yes, a bind mount / bind volume is when a volume is explicitly mapped to a location in your local storage rather than managed by docker and likely owned by root.

https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/compose-file-v3/#volumes

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Ok.

That’s over my head. I barely have a grasp on docker. And even then I’m paranoid that I’m screwing something up.