Hello Bitwarden community,
Just finished setting up a Unified deployment on mysql with nginx reverse proxy. Very happy with what I’ve seen so far but I have a small issue.
My issue is that I’m using a custom port (ie 9443) and in a few places this isn’t recognized (verification email and admin login noted so far). Is there somewhere to set this port so that those URLs work inherently without having to re-write the URL manually by hand? I can’t find any env variable that seems to fit the bill for this use-case but maybe I’m missing something.
Thanks in advance and keep up the great work!
I get always the 2022.12.0 as version.
Is the 2023.1.0 not yet available as unified version?
I cannot really find the answer, but my company is interested in the new unified solution and i like to test it. Would it be possible to switch the docker version to the ‘live’ version without having to migrate everything once unified comes out of beta?
Thank you for answering.
It does look like Oracle has a EntityFrameworkCore provider and it even looks like they are keeping it pretty well updated so there is a path towards possibly being able to support it but before I would want to add support for it I will really like to see their source code for the provider be open sourced (maybe it is but I can’t find it) so if we run into issues we can possibly even help upstream the fixes and I would want to see that there would be significant usage of such database with Bitwarden.
So in that vain I would say make a full feature request here on the forums and if it has a lot of community support we can look into supporting it in the future.
Dear community and Unified beta developers,
I’m very happy with the unified docker version. If I would open the site up to the internet, through reverse proxy, everyone could click CREATE ACCOUNT from the login page. As system owner, I would like to be able to grant and deny access to new users.
I know Vaultwarden has a possibility to disable that function, and the self-hosted version can also be configured to disable that.
I haven’t been able to find documentation on how to configure this for the Unified Beta; is it even possible?
settings.env file you should be able to add the line
globalSettings__disableUserRegistration=true to disable user registration. The line might already exist and be commented out.
For future reference, I found the currently available options in the environment settings on github.
I must have overlooked the line containing ‘disableUserRegistration’ somehow…
Thanks, that works like a charm!
Since I use docker run, I added the following line to my command:
-e globalSettings__disableUserRegistration=true \
I have set up bitwarden Unified twice (once with nginx/SSL and once with the unmodified docker-compose on port 80) but run into the same problem both times. I get to the login page fine, and click on “New around here? Create account”. I enter all my information as requested and click on “Create account” and… nothing. It doesn’t act like it is registering the click at all. It changes to a “hand” icon but there is no link shown when I hover over the “Create account” button. What am I missing? I can’t seem to do anything further.
at the risk of sounding like I’m *******, I read the unified documentation page, and I don’t get it. what are the main differences between the standard unix self hosted install I did about a month ago and this new unified install? looks the same, afaik.
In my exoerience:
Difficulty of installation. Number of docker containers (only one, vs multiple in standard), external database like mysql is made possible (mssql docker is created in standard). Possibility to locate data wherever you want (docker volume, vs /opt/bitwarden).
Unified is more for the tech enthusiast. For example, it’s now easier to install it to a Synology server. When I installed the selfhosted version in /opt, the system partition was full, resulting in errors. That’s solved by switching to unified. (it may also be possible to move data to volume1 with standard selfhosted script somehow, but I didn’t make it that far)
Unified lowers the bar for selfhosting.
Hey Jeff, here is a summary:
Simplify configuration and optimize resource usage (CPU, memory) by deploying Bitwarden with a single Docker image.
Utilize different database solutions such as MSSQL, PostgreSQL, MySQL/MariaDB.
Run on ARM architecture for alternative systems such as Raspberry Pi and NAS servers.
More info here: https://bitwarden.com/help/install-and-deploy-unified-beta/
I’ve successfully setup up my raspberry pi with bitwarden unified + mariadb.
- Is or will sqlite be supported (found nothing in the documentation)?
- How do I backup my data (also found nothing in the documentation)?
Do I need to backup the whole /var/lib/docker/…/bitwarden_bitwarden and /…/bitwarden_data?
so for a 2nd grader (a trending way to explain things, lol) more complex to install but compatible with more hardware, and lighter weight? will it be packaged for synology? what I would like to see is an appliance that can be installed on proxmox or other hypervisors, or even better, why not just package it as a cloud optional desktop app like 1Password (where I came from).
You might like to check the post by MaddGDad, as he points a link where they configure it for a Synology NAS.
Hi, I never really used the old container setup but I now deployed the Unified container.
Using a mysql container on the side.
What I noticed and struggling with is that it seems that the Bitwarden container itself needs internet access to register the server ID and key. And also when creating users and such it wants to connect to e.g. https://identity.bitwarden.com
The “Create account” button hangs and gives an error when isolating the server from internet.
On-prem we would really like to isolate the Bitwarden server to be used on the private network only (we don’t need push notifications etc)
Is this possible ?
Hi, like I replied to the original post.
It seems that Bitwarden needs internet access to connect to certain services , like Create account
So your container needs outbound internet access
Thank you for supporting sqlite in the latest 2022.2 release! I moved my implementation from mysql to sqlite, and it works so much easier for small-scale implementations. Backup and recovery works like a charm, too, and is much more resource friendly.