I start a Docker container on my machine. It will have to talk to two services on remote nodes and for this it occupies ports 80 and 443.
I log into the container and start one task from the command line. The task does some initial data exchange with the remote nodes. Having done that, it starts a very long computation without any need to contact the remote nodes anymore.
I'd like to run that task more times in parallel, but I cannot start multiple instances of the container, because they would clash about the ports.
Is there some kind of software router that I can use to sort out this problem?
I know from here that I can run multiple shells on my container, but I am still curious about the possibility of using a software router to serve multiple containers.
NB: I am not using any docker-compose or kubernetes setting. Just plain, simple containers.
Related
Scenario:
There is a container running with image version 1.0 and exposed port 8080 on localhost 80. The new version of the image is available, and there is a need to switch those versions. No, any orchestration tool is running ( Kubernetes, OpenShift etc...).
Is it possible to start a container with version 1.1 make it run without a problem
Please, keep in mind that I don't want to keep it simple, no replication, etc.
Simply docker container with the binded port to localhost.
Questions:
1. Is it possible to switch exposing of port between containers without downtime?
2. If not, is there is any mechanism implemented with docker (free edition) to do such switch?
Without downtime, you'd need a second replica of the service up an running, and a proxy in front of that service that's listening to user requests and routing from one to the other. Both Swarm Mode and Kubernetes provide this capability with similar tools, the port being exposed is indirectly connected to the app via either an application reverse proxy, or some iptables rules and ipvs entries in the kernel.
Out of the box, recent versions of docker include support for Swarm Mode with nothing additional to install. You can run a simple docker swarm init to start a single node swarm cluster in less than a second. And then instead of docker-compose up you switch to docker stack deploy -c docker-compose.yml $stack_name to manage your projects with almost the same compose file. For swarm mode, you'll want to be on version 3 of the compose file syntax.
For a v3 syntax compose file in swarm mode that has no outage on an update, you'll want healthcheck's defined in your image to monitor the application and report back when it's ready to receive requests. Then you'll want a deploy section of the compose file to either have multiple replicas for HA, or at least configure a single replica to have a "start-first" policy to ensure the new service is up before stopping the old one. See the compose docs for settings to adjust: https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#update_config
For an application based reverse proxy in docker, I really do like traefik, but more to allow me to run multiple http based container services with a single port opened. This allows me to mapping requests based off the hostname/path/http header to the right container, while at the same time giving features to migrate between different versions with weighting of which backend to use so you can do more than a simple round-robin load balancing during an upgrade.
There is no mechanism native to Docker that would allow you replace one container with another with no interruption. On the other hand, the duration of the interruption can probably be measured in milliseconds; whether or not this is really an issue for you depends entirely on your application.
You can get the behavior you want by introducing a dynamic reverse proxy such as Traefik into your configuration. The proxy binds to host ports and handles requests from remote systems, then distributes those requests to one or more backend containers.
You can create and remove backend containers as you please, and as long as at least one is running your application will be available. For your specific use case, this means that you can start the new version of your application first, then retire the old one, all without any interruption in service.
I have a couple of Docker swarm questions (Sorry for not splitting them up but they are all closely related):
Do all instances in a swarm have to run on different machines or can they all run on the same? (if having limited amount of hardware and just wanting to try swarm mode)
Do I have to run swarm mode to be able to communicate between instances?
What is the key difference between swarm mode and just running a number of containers as regular?
What are the options of communication between instances of containers? (in swarm and in regular mode) http? named pipes? other?
If using http communication between containers on same machine, will it be roughly similarly as fast as named pipes?
Is there any built in support for a message bus or similar in Docker?
Is there support for any consensus protocol in Docker?
Are there any GUI's for designing, managing, testing and/or debugging Docker swarms?
Can a container list other containers, stop/restart some and start new ones? (to be able to function as a manager for other containers)
Can a container be given access to OS-features (Linux in my case) to configure for instance a reverse proxy or port forwarding on the WAN?
Background: What I'm trying to figure out is how I should go about and build a micro service mesh using Docker. The containers will be running .NET Core. I'm not too keen on relying too much on specifically Docker since it may not be the preferred tech in a couple of years. What can/should I do with Docker and what can/should I do inside the containers. That's what I'm trying to figure out.
I've copied your questions and tried to answer them.
Do all instances in a swarm have to run on different machines or can they all run on the same? (if having limited amount of hardware and just wanting to try swarm mode)
You can have only one machine in a swarm and run multiple tasks of the same service or in other words your scale of a service can be more than the number of actual machines. I have a testing swarm with a single machine and one with three and it works the same way.
Do I have to run swarm mode to be able to communicate between instances?
You have to run your docker in swarm mode in order to create a service, please see this link
What is the key difference between swarm mode and just running a number of containers as regular?
The key difference afaik is, that when a task goes down, docker puts another task up automatically. And you can easily scale your services, which means you can easily have multiple tasks just by scaling your service (up or down). As of running a container - when it goes down you have to manually start another.
What are the options of communication between instances of containers? (in swarm and in regular mode) http? named pipes? other?
I've currently only tested with a couple of wildfly servers in a swarm, which are on the same network. I'm not sure about others, but would love to find out. I've only read about RabbitMQ, but can't seem to find the link atm.
If using http communication between containers on same machine, will it be roughly similarly as fast as named pipes?
I can't say.
Is there any built in support for a message bus or similar in Docker?
I can't say.
Are there any GUI's for designing, managing, testing and/or debugging Docker swarms?
I've tested rancher and portainer.io, for a list of them I found this link
Can a container list other containers, stop/restart some and start new ones?
I'm not sure why would you want to do that? And I guess it's possible, see this link
Can a container be given access to OS-features (Linux in my case) to configure for instance a reverse proxy or port forwarding on the WAN?
I can't say.
#namokarm did a great job, and I'm filling in the gaps:
Benefits of Swarm over docker run or docker-compose.
All communications between containers has to be TCP/UDP etc. You could force two containers to only run on a single machine, then bind-mount their socket so they skip the network, but that would be a bit of an anti-pattern. Swarm is designed for everything to be distributed and TCP/UDP.
In a few cases, such as PHP-FPM + Nginx, I recommend bundling both in the same container (against docker best practices, but trust me it's easier than separate containers). This will ensure they scale together (1-to-1 relationship) and stay fast since they use local sockets to communicate). I only recommend this for a few setups like this, the other being ColdFusion + Nginx because they are two parts of the same tool that provide a HTTP response... I don't recommend bundling images together in nearly all other cases, but I'm open to ideas :).
Rancher is no longer supporting Swarm. Portainer and SwarmPit are GUI options.
Yes a container running something like Portainer/SwarmPit or controlling the Docker socket through a bind-mount or TCP can control the whole Swarm. This is how all docker management works :)
For reverse proxy, you would run a container-based proxy like Traefik or Docker Flow Proxy, which sets up HAProxy for Docker and Swarm.
Many of these topics are discussed in my DockerCon talks: https://www.bretfisher.com/dockercon18/
I'm wondering whether there are any differences between the following docker setups.
Administrating two separate docker engines via the remote api.
Administrating two docker swarm nodes via one single docker engine.
I'm wondering if you can administrate a swarm with the ability run a container on a specific node are there any use cases to have separate docker engines?
The difference between the two is swarm mode. When a docker engine is running services in swarm mode you get:
Orchestration from the manager to continuously try to correct any differences between the current state and the target state. This can also include HA using the quorum model (as long as a majority of the managers are reachable to make decisions).
Overlay networking which allows containers on different hosts to talk to each other on their own container network. That can also involve IPSEC for security.
Mesh networking for published ports and a VIP for the service that doesn't change like container IP's do. The latter prevents problems from DNS caching. And the former has all nodes in the swarm publish the port and routes traffic to a container providing this service.
Rolling upgrades to avoid any downtime with replicated services.
Load balancing across multiple nodes when scaling up a service.
More details on swarm mode are available from docker's documentation.
The downside of swarm mode is that you are one layer removed from the containers when they run on a remote node. You can't run an exec command on a task to investigate a container, you need to do that on a container and be on the node it's currently using. Docker also removed some options from services like --volumes-from which don't apply when containers may be running on different machines.
If you think you may grow beyond running containers on a single node, need to communicate between the containers on different nodes, or simply want the orchestration features like rolling upgrades, then I would recommend swarm mode. I'd only manage containers directly on the hosts if you have a specific requirement that prevents swarm mode from being an option. And you can always do both, manage some containers directly and others as a service or stack inside of swarm, on the same nodes.
I am new to docker. I have a doubt regarding docker. Based on the understanding of docker, Docker will help to create the container of the application we can to deploy along with application dependencies.
My question is that if i have web application inside docker container, is it possible to run multiple containers inside single host? If yes, How will i make sure the request be directed to each app?.
Will there be any change in performance depending on number of core of host?
Is it possible to run multiple containers inside single host?
Yes, you can run many.
If yes, How will direct requests to the right container?
You have many options, the simplest is just to run the container with port forwarding (which is built in to docker), but you could also run a load balancer or proxy on the host.
Will there be any change in performance depending on number of core of host?
There can be, of course. It depends on whether or not you're already reaching a performance bottleneck of some sort before adding another container. All the containers are making use of the same hardware.
Is it possible to hotcopy a docker container? or some sort of clustering with docker for HA purposes?
Can someone simplify this?
How to scale Docker containers in production
Docker containers are not designed to be VMs and are not really meant for hot-copies. Instead you should define your container such that it has a well-known start state. If the container goes down the alternate should start from the well-known start state. If you need to keep track of state that the container generates at run time this has to be done externally to docker.
One option is to use volumes to mount the state (files) on to the host filesystem. Then use RAID, NTFS or any other means, to share that file system with other physical nodes. Then you can mount the same files on to a second docker container on a second host with the same state.
Depending on what you are running in your containers you can also have to state sharing inside your containers for example using mongo replication sets. To reiterate though containers are not as of yet designed to be migrated with runtime state.
There is a variety of technologies around Docker that could help, depending on what you need HA-wise.
If you simply wish to start a stateless service container on different host, you need a network overlay, such as weave.
If you wish to replicate data across for something like database failover, you need a storage solution, such as Flocker.
If you want to run multiple services and have load-balancing and forget on which host each container runs, given that X instances are up, then Kubernetes is the kind of tool you need.
It is possible to make many Docker-related tools work together, we have a few stories on our blog already.