File structure in hassos?

OK - I’m testing things after the ‘news’ and installed the hassos qcow image in Proxmox…

What’s the path for the configuration files / addon files etc?

On a supervised install it was /usr/share/hassio/*

I can’t find them now :man_shrugging:

Please and thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

Found it (which is really hard when find isn’t an included program!)

For anyone looking in the future it is /mnt/data/supervisor/*


The answer is useful but I’m intrigued how you found it, was it just manually wandering through file paths ?

The answer is intresting in two ways : -

  1. Where it is (of itself)
  2. That it’s under /data which is what cogneato alluded to when he was saying (in the deprecation thread) that a new feature of HassOS will be to ‘move’ /data to another drive - Obviously implying we can just use the SD (on Pi 4’s at least, but similar implications for other hardware and OS’s) as boot and system but (I’m assuming big time here) that HA with it’s logging and databases etc. can easily be put on an SSD (or HD) and we may not need to worry about boot compatibility, just read/write capability

Yup, trial and error

cd /
cd [first folder it found]
cd …

I don’t really get why it’s not just in home tbh - given it’s a single use image, the conifguration may as well be in the spot you land at when you’re logged in. It’s only a mapped path after all.

But ‘presumably’ under Proxmox, you could have multiple HA containers running different instances.
With Samba you could define paths however you wish but how would ‘it’ (the host) differentiate different /mnt/data/supervisor’s AND how do you reach a specific front end ???

Maybe a question for when when we have more experience of such


What hardware are you using ?

Proxmox runs VMs rather than ‘containers’ (There’s LXC containers but it’s not he same in the sense of docker), so they’re like having completely separate computers. Each one gets it’s own IP address so I currently have two homeasistant instances running - one on and one on - there are ways to map storage across VM’s but that’s getting well out of the scope of the target audience.

I was just trying to setup a hassos instance to see what problems the target audience might come across, turns out that even as a power-user there’s a few massive hurdles alond the way and it is not as straightforward as is suggested. Installing it isn’t really an issue, but after the best part of a day I still haven’t worked out how to get a snapshot from one to the other - but that’s another thread I’ve started :man_shrugging:

I’m using a dell optiplex 7010 with an i5, 16GB ram and a 500GB SSD with 4 VM’s doing various things - 5 if you include my new test hassos VM.

:+1: :+1: :+1:

You’ll have to write a guide if @kanga_who doesn’t beat you to it. :rofl:
Though Cogneato warns that a lot of the guides miss out a lot of vital information on security, disk allocation sizes, memory allocation sizes, etc, etc, etc, (so why doesn’t someone say “that’s not quite right - please refer to X” to get a best possible guide going Dunno

Anyway, it looks like we shall be living through “interesting times”

Well, that’s kind of why I was doing it - I was going to document how I did it and chuck up a migration guide filled with my usual combination of dry humour and amazing easy-to-follow steps - but it’s not gone well tbh, and I don’t really feel comfortable that this is a good way to do things. I’m becoming more and more tempted to go back to a docker-compose setup and leave the supervisor behind if I’m honest :man_shrugging:

You didn’t get the memo? You’re not supposed to mess with HassOS. :wink:

1 Like

lol - I’m not trying to mess with it, I’m trying to put a snapshot on it so I can restore my configuration :laughing:

(PS - nice to see you posting on the boards again :slight_smile: )

1 Like

Well, see, HassOS is supposed to be this magical box…

I’m just messing with you. I have been laughing all morning at this announcement (I was out enjoying nature all day yesterday and missed the announcement). The way this whole thing has been handled is like watching open mic night at the local pub.

Communication is hard I guess.


But surely you are not suggesting (add hint of sarcasm/irony here) that the devs would make it difficult for anyone to use supervisor in anything other than a vanilla Pi with an SD ???


I’m finding a lot of ‘cart coming before the horse’ and this is just another example.

Them: We’re getting rid of this so from tomorrow you’ll have to follow the new official guide.

Us: OK, where’s the new official guide?

Them: We haven’t written it yet, it’ll maybe be here around xmas…

I’ll happily write migration guides and contribute all sorts of fun and easy-to-follow stuff for their new target audience, but none of it is working and there doesn’t seem to be any intention to introduce working things before deprecating the old working way. It’s worrying, although there is a slight reprieve as the decision has been suspended.

For now :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like

Seeing that you are experimenting with a supported flavor of installation, can you try something easy for me?

You need to be able to open a console in the homeassistant container. I’ve done that using portainer. From there, ping a machine on your local network using its unqualified name. In my case, this fails:

ping io

However, it does work using the machine’s fully-qualified name (or IP address):

ping io.local

If you try the same thing in these containers, hassio_cli, hassio_dns and hassio_supervisor, it will work with unqualified names. It only fails in homeassistant and hassio_multicast.

In a nutshell, the homeassistant container is unable to resolve unqualified names using Home Assistant Supervised on Ubuntu. I’m curious to know if it works when it’s HassOS.

FWIW, if you’re interested, I discovered the difference between the containers that can and cannot resolve unqualified names and posted it here. I reported it as a bug but the issue was dismissed.

I will try next time I fire it up :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

So it seems the gang is all here now… :grinning:

So this is a pretty basic question i’m sure but I really don’t know the answer…

What exactly is Proxmox?

is it it’s own OS or does it run on top of another OS?

TBH, I haven’t even googled it yet. I’ve been too busy keeping up on the other thread.

If you don’t want to answer and just tell me to “google it noob” I’m ok with that too. :wink:

1 Like

It’s a hypervisor which is basically a minimal operating system purpose-built to manage virtual machines.

I believe Proxmox is based on Debian. In other words, there’s just enough Debian there to allow it to host and manage virtual machines.

It’s a hypervisor based on Debian.

Both. If you download the ISO it’s a customized Debian that just runs bare essentials to get Proxmox working (sound familiar?)

There is a way you can install it on top of your Debian install of choosing also. Shockingly enough, it’s a SUPPORTED option!


noob, - :rofl:
He’s been here 5 months less than you (but he is a lazy SoB, a bit like me really cos I had never heard of it )

1 Like

LOL. He’s referring to Proxmox noobery. I have been running Proxmox for nearly 12 years now.