Hello, I’ve been attempting to install Discourse using Portainer, but I’m encountering issues. Whenever I try, I receive the error message: “Failed to deploy a stack: postgres Pulling app Pulling redis Pulling web Pulling sidekiq Pulling…” I used the Docker Compose file from this link: (docker-compose.yml · master · libre.sh / compose / Discourse · GitLab) Could someone please offer some advice on this matter? Thank you.

But hey, Portainer is actually GUI over Docker exactly. So, if most of people fails, and support has only one answer: use dedicated server or pay for cloud version because of lack of documentation, that’s smells strange. In fact we are using docker. Many people using docker and remains unsupported, because, well.. nobody knows why. Support topics with same issues remain unanswered, or with answers like “I see a lot of similar quesions, try to search before posting.”, yes, similar unanswered questions. And if anyone starts complaining, here is “oooooh, it’s not working? too bad, too bad, maybe you’re not techy enough, here, try our pre-paid plans”. I even tried to create dedicated server with docker on it, install discourse, install portainer on top of that and clone whole setup using docker compose with absolute no success. Looks like pseudo-obfuscaton. Kinda, yeah, it’s MIT, except some nuances. Yeah, yeah, it’s open source, nobody owes anybody anything, it’s all aboug voluntary and good will, but eh. Just to clarify, I found someone who successed, but it was a short conversation: “I payed for the solution, so, I’m selling it myself for $500”. So here’s the options: buy from officials, or buy from some person or, well, use dedicated just for one purpose server. If there’s really no other options, maybe it should be mentioned in documentation? Not “just docker and hardware requirements to install”, but strong mention, that you must use whole server only for this product, you can’t use discourse as a part of something else. That conclusion can throw away many unanswered questions moving the idea from “yes you theoretically can, here’s the documentation, search” to “you cannot”.

[image] Ivor Barhansky: And if anyone starts complaining, here is “oooooh, it’s not working? too bad, too bad, maybe you’re not techy enough, here, try our pre-paid plans”. Or, “You want to use a bunch of tools that we don’t use and it’s not working for you? We can’t guess why. If you use tools that are most like the ones that we use and test, it’s more likely to work and we’re more likely to be able to help.” The issue could be as simple as “build an image with docker and launcher, push it to a repo, and launch it with portainer.” And the problem could be as simple as not setting a single ENV variable, or dozens of other tiny things having to do with networking and routing, any of which might be solved by a single line of code. But figuring out what line of code with a bunch of tools that people here don’t use is not easy to do. [image] Ivor Barhansky: If there’s really no other options, maybe it should be mentioned in documentation? Not “just docker and hardware requirements to install”, but strong mention, that you must use whole server only for this product, you can’t use discourse as a part of something else. That conclusion can throw away many unanswered questions moving the idea from “yes you theoretically can, here’s the documentation, search” to “you cannot”. The Standard Install works for lots of people who know nothing about system adminstration. Configuring reverse proxies makes things at least 4x as hard to do, and even harder to support via a forum.

[image] Ivor Barhansky: So, if most of people fails, and support has only one answer: use dedicated server or pay for cloud version because of lack of documentation, that’s smells strange. What are you basing this on? The usual response to unsupported configurations is to give the standard install a whirl because it lets anyone get Discourse up and running without paying CDCK a dime. [image] Ivor Barhansky: Many people using docker and remains unsupported, because, well… nobody knows why. I have to question your motives here… The standard install relies on a custom launcher which uses docker. It exists for a multitude of reasons, including the simple fact that even a completely non-technical user with zero prior experience can usually follow the steps and get running in 30 minutes or less. If you know your docker-fu then you’re welcome to go that route, but we can’t guarantee anyone will be able to assist with the specifics of your configuration, hence #unsupported-install. The thing about free community-based support is that if the scope of support isn’t limited, then the overall quality of advice and success rate will decline. [image] Ivor Barhansky: “I payed for the solution, so, I’m selling it myself for $500” Can you explain what’s wrong with the above? If someone pays money to develop expertise which is in short supply doesn’t said expertise have value?

Discourse installation in docker in portainer

Product Support Self-hosting

pfaffman (Jay Pfaffman) October 25, 2023, 9:19pm 2

If you search you’ll find several other people who have failed. I thought I’d seen someone succeed, so you might look at more posts than I did.

If you want a solution that works and you’ll get support for, use docker.

Topic		Replies	Views
Installing Discourse using Portainer Self-hosting unsupported-install , hosting	6	2670	May 16, 2025
Trying to install Discourse on portainer but it's not pulling the base container Self-hosting unsupported-install	8	1474	May 16, 2025
How do I even install Discourse? Self-hosting	20	1097	May 1, 2025
Trying to install Discourse on Docker before server just testing software? Self-hosting unsupported-install , docker	6	460	May 17, 2025
Do I really need a Docker based Discourse install? Product Support	10	3390	September 6, 2018

Discourse installation in docker in portainer

Related topics