Major breaking change in coming Joplin Server 2.0

OK, I've been in IT since 1975 and your upgrade details left me in the dust.

I was with you down to:

Upgrade the Docker image to v2 (what Docker image, I'm on Dropbox?)
Upgrade the desktop client to v2 (I guess this is the normal upgrade process, though not a normal upgrade)
From the desktop client, go to Config > Synchronisation > Advanced, and click "Re-upload local data to sync target" (I don't see this option on my desktop client version 1.7.11)
Synchronise and wait for it to complete. (I guess I'll keep my fingers crossed?)

I suppose if I'm satisfied with Joplin as it stands I can just never update again?

Upgrade the Docker image to v2 (what Docker image, I'm on Dropbox?)

When you use Dropbox as Sync target, then the Joplin server info is uninteresting, because it only concerns those who use the Joplin Server as a sync target.

Upgrade the desktop client to v2 (I guess this is the normal upgrade process, though not a normal upgrade)

Yes

From the desktop client, go to Config > Synchronisation > Advanced, and click "Re-upload local data to sync target" (I don't see this option on my desktop client version 1.7.11)

Only interesting for those who use the Joplin Server in an older version

I suppose if I'm satisfied with Joplin as it stands I can just never update again?

No, you can upgrade

1 Like

It’s confusing because it’s about Joplin Server and you’re not using it. If you’re using Dropbox you don’t need to do anything special.

OK, I get it. Thanks/sorry.

Alright, I've been able to build the arm64 version as well - a lot easier than expected, so I spent the afternoon trying to build it for arm/v7. While libvips is available for armv7, sharp is not.
As such, it's not possible to build the server for that platform unless you build sharp itself - which I'm not sure how to do.

@laurent - it looks like you're building the docker images with appveyor which I'm not familiar with at all. If you want, I can open a pull request with changes that would build the server for amd64 and arm64 using Github Actions instead.

2 Likes

I'm experiencing a sync problem trying to connect the client to server.

image

1 Like

Some more details wouldn't hurt, like what sync method are you using for example?

Oh sorry, using the Joplin Server connection.

I can login to the server just fine, but client will not.

Actually, I should've guessed given the topic name. For some reason I thought I was replying on a separate topic.

I'm not that familiar with the server so will let someone more knowledgable to comment.

2 Likes

What version of joplin desktop?

Joplin 2.0.1 (prod, win32)

Sync Version: 2
Profile Version: 37
Keychain Supported: Yes

Revision: 74d8fec98

And server is 2.0?

I believe so. I'm using this Docker Build

https://hub.docker.com/r/florider89/joplin-server

Ok then it's the wrong forum to ask because this is not the official release.

By the way @florider, could you remind me what is the purpose of this release? Is it to support ARM64 or is there more to it? I don't mind that you maintain a separate release, but it would be useful to mention that it's not the official one and what are the differences with it (or overall goal). This is mainly so that people know what they are installing and perhaps go to the right place for support.

I think florider's uses persistent storage, while yours does not.

This means should someone ever drop the container (or upgrade, which always drops the container) all data is lost.

1 Like

I believe the official was having problems too. I'll load it and try again.

  • know @florider's version has PostGres and not SQLite.

Ok, I used the standard instruction and got a new server going and I get the same exact error.

But why does Postgres recommend storing the data in the container? docs/README.md at master ¡ docker-library/docs ¡ GitHub You'd think they know what they are doing? In any case the pattern to upgrade a Docker container that uses the internal volume management is to pgdump_all, upgrade the image, then re-import the SQL dump.

Having the files in an external volume perhaps make the upgrade easier, but it has other drawbacks in terms of security and ease of use.

1 Like

It does not seem to me like they recommend it, at least not on the page you linked. The way I read it they just list various options without specifying what's preferable.

It's true they don't explicitly recommend it but they make it the default. If people lose their data every time they upgrade, then surely they'll set a different default?