Have something to say?

Tell us how we could make the product more useful to you.

Suggestion

Given this incident—which was clearly a case of human error on my part—I feel compelled to offer some important suggestions to Webdock. I fully acknowledge that this was my own mistake and stemmed from my own actions. However, I want to share these suggestions to ensure that other Webdock users do not experience the same misfortune I did—even though I realize such an issue is unlikely to happen to someone who is meticulous and an expert in this field. As someone who is not yet an expert and perhaps lacks meticulousness in this area, here are the suggestions I can offer to help prevent this in the future: First, regarding the section at https://app.webdock.io/en/dash/shellusers/{username} (Existing Shell Users): if a user attempts to delete an existing shell user, please provide a more prominent warning. Clearly explain the consequences of this action within the Webdock interface. I deleted the user intentionally but without realizing the risks or the disaster that would ensue, as there was no warning provided in the Webdock UI. * UpdateSorry its my mistake please adding red color on that warn sir if someone click delete for existing users, i am not notice that, I am just newbie guys that save important files & service from user folder Second, when an "Existing Shell User" is deleted, please have the system create a backup of that user's folder. This way, if a user accidentally deletes the account, it remains possible to restore the username along with the associated files and folders. Third, please provide a feature to extract specific files from snapshots. Snapshots shouldn't just be for full system restores; users should be able to access the file contents and retrieve specific files that might be useful in situations like the one I am currently facing. its not my complains, its just suggestion Regards castipo

Muhamad Heral about 23 hours ago

💡 Feature Request

Unable to use signup promo code on web dock if signing up using mobile.

I used a promocode that the ai agent confirmed is also valid, that i received from a friend of mine. However, it’s for new users, which I am, and i signed up on mobile. At the moment, mobile devices don’t show any option to redeem a promocode on signup which this promocode was intended to be, though i checked online and it had been documented you can also redeem in account settings, so i created mine. After creation, i went to my account settings and attempted to redeem but It wouldn’t let me as I hadn’t redeemed at signup If there is no way to redeem at signup on mobile, and there’s no way to redeem it after signup in settings even if you haven’t made a purchase it still counts you as an existing user (given that my account was created within the past 6 hours) there should be a fix pushed either that mobile has a signup redemption option or that account settings should allow new user codes if it’s within 24 hours of creating the account. Please contact me, as i’d like to have the promocode redeemed, and can provide the account identification necessary as well. (replying to this post)

spar 4 months ago

1

🐛 Bug Reports

In Progress

Geo-distributed Monitoring Instances (Internal Feature Proposal)

Enable the ability to run multiple instances of the Monitoring service in different data centers around the world. Each instance performs HTTP/PING/MTR checks from its geo-location and reports latency, number of hops, and full MTR output. This enables us to show users how their server performs from various locations. This would be a paid add-on to the base monitoring service. Instance Identification: Each instance assigned a unique location_id,… Monitoring Result Extensions: Extend result schema with: location_id, latency_ms, hop_count, mtr_output,… API Enhancements: API by specific location and plan Workload Distribution: Each instance only runs assigned checks (region-specific or filtered by tags) Business Add-on Strategy: Free Plan/ Paid Add-on

Antonio Ford about 1 year ago

💡 Feature Request

In Progress

Reintroduce High-Frequency CPUs

First, I must say I love Webdock, the additional tooling that is provided, the clear API, and also the transparency related to issues appearing and the speed at which issues are solved. Now, unfortunately, I heard the Ryzen product line is discontinued. I think the Ryzen offering made Webdock very competitive. High-frequency CPUs and a sustainable hosting provider are a great combination. Either having slow Xeons for an incredible price or having incredibly fast Ryzen for also an incredible price/value made Webdock stand out. The new Epyc offering is somewhat in between those two but with pricing very similar to the former Ryzen plans (about 7% cheaper). In my initial benchmarking, the Epyc servers unfortunately perform 30-50% slower than the Ryzen counterparts for WordPress/SQL workloads. The performance is also very close to Hetzner’s AMD offering now, which is offered for a much lower price and generally has better uptime in my experience. I hope Webdock will reintroduce high-frequency CPUs, such as the high-frequency Epyc counterparts of Ryzen or other Ryzen CPUs (e.g. the 7900 or 9900 provide a lot of speed against relatively advantageous power usage, compared to top-of-the-line 7950x/9950x). There are other sustainable providers out there who offer Ryzen hosting at similar price levels, but they are unfortunately not as catered to developers as Webdock. So I really would like Webdock to offer high-frequency plans again. Addendum: some benchmark data, benchmarked on Xeon 2c/4GB, Epyc 2c/4gb and Ryzen 2c/4gb, using the default WordPress installation WordPress Post Query Test Inserting, Querying, Deleting 10000 posts Ryzen: 20.9 seconds Epyc: 30.7 seconds Xeon: 116,7 seconds WordPress Benchmark Plugin - Test PHP, SQL, Disk and Network Performance Ryzen: 9.4 overall score (PHP, SQL, File & Network tests are all significantly faster) Epyc: 7.6 score Xeon: 7.4 score (SQL and PHP are slower than Epyc here, the rest is similar) WordPress Performance Tester - WordPress Benchmark Plugin Ryzen: 6.003 score (lower is better) Epyc: 9.278 score Xeon: 10.399 score h2load load tester - requests per second the server can handle Ryzen: 83.79 requests / second Epyc: 65.55 requests / second Xeon: 35.27 requests / second

Michiel almost 2 years ago

5

💡 Feature Request