When I used "Remote - Containers" extension of VS Code to setup a development environment, it stuck in one of the step for 661 seconds. What's the purpose of this step? Is there any way to boost this step?
Below is part of the container log shown in VS Code, we can see a long time interval from 27646 ms to 689201 ms, which took 86.9% of all start time.
The content of .devcontainer/devcontainer.json is
The content of .devcontainer/Dockerfile is
Step to reproduce
Open an folder in VS Code
Remote-Containers: Add Development Container Configuration Files
From a predefined container configuration definition
Alpine
3.14
Remote-Containers: Reopen in Container
By the way, the folder I opened is a remote folder in an Linux server, with docker installed.
After stuck for a while, the folder was successfully opened, but I really wonder how to boost it, otherwise it's hard to use.
Related
I'm running my development environment in Docker containers. Since I have done some updates I'm now experiencing some difficulties when trying to rebuild my project that's running in my Docker container.
My project is running in a Windows Server Core Docker container running IIS, and I'm running the project from a shared volume on my host. I'm able to build the project before starting the docker container, but after the docker container is started the build fails with the following error:
Could not copy "C:\path\to\dll\name.dll" to "bin\name.dll". Exceeded retry count of 10. Failed. The file is locked by: "vmwp.exe (22604), vmmem (10488)"
It seems that the Hyper-V process is locking the DLL files. This clearly wasn't the case before and this seems to be related to some Docker or Windows updates I have done. How can I solve this issue? Do I need to change the process of building the application and running it in my Docker containers?
I have been searching for a while now, and I can't find much about this specific issue. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!
I've run in the similar problem. Solved by stopping/removing the running application container from docker-for-windows interface. docker rm -f will also do.
Potential solution:
If you use Docker Windows Containers make sure you have at least Windows 10.0.1809 on both environment(your physical machine and on docker) -run CMDs and you will see on top of it.
Use isolation flag with process when you run docker: --isolation process.
On physical machine two vmxxx(lower and higher PID)(don't remember the name exactly) processes was keeping *.dll file(the build was going on docker side where build tools 2019 was used).
Short description:
First MSbuild Error occurred because msbuild tries to delete file - access denied - probably this one vm process handle the file.
Second Msbuild Error occurred(the first vmxxx one caused that) showing that copy the same dll file from one direction to another it's not possible due to System lock (4).
Both two vmxxx processes kept one dll file during build on docker. It was visible in tool "Process Explorer"(use full version from Sysinternals)
One vmxxx had lower number of PID which lock the dll file and do not release it before second process with higher number of PID tries do something with it.
And it's one random dll file(s) that is kept by two different process.
Also, using and defining only one CPU without parallel on msbuild did not solved the issue before. Same on docker where you are able to manage the cpu and memory. In the end isolation on docker solved the case.
Isolation should take care of processes when you build project from docker container.
I'm using Visual Studio Code on a Windows machine. I'm trying to setup a Python Dev Container using a directory that contains a large set of CSV files (about 200GB). When I click to launch the remote container in Visual Studio the application hangs saying (Starting Dev Container (show log): Building image.
I've been looking through the docs and having read the Advanced Container Configuation I've tried modifying the devcontainer.json file by adding workspaceMount and workspaceFolder entries:
"workspaceMount" : "source=//c/path/to/folder,target=/workspace,type=bind,consistency=delegated"
"workspaceFolder" : "/workspace"
But to no avail. Is there a solution to launching Dev Containers on Windows using folders which contain large files?
I had a slightly different problem, but the solution might help you or someone else. I was trying to run docker-compose inside a docker-in-docker image (provided by vscode). In my case, my container was able to start, but nothing inside the container was able to run.
To solve my issue, I updated vscode and and now there is a new option Remote-Containers: Clone Repository in Container Volume.... If your code is a git repo, you can do this:
Step #1:
Step #2:
Step #3 and onwards:
Follow the given steps provided by vscode and you should have your repository in the container as a volume. It reduced my building times from about 30mins to 3mins (within the running container) because I brought stuff into the container after it was up and running.
Assuming the 200GB is ignored by your .gitignore, what you could try to do is once the container has started, you can copy the 200GB worth of excel files into the container. I thought this would help because I did a similar thing by bringing in all my node_modules after running the container.
I have a development use-case where I use a script to configure a shell with docker-machine or other environment and then open a directory containing source and settings (/.vscode/, .devcontainer/) that I can edit/build/debug in the VS code Remote Containers extension.
In short, I'm looking to implement the following sequence when a "start-development.sh" script/hook runs:
Set up host-side env or remote resources (reverse sshfs to mount source to a remote docker-machine, modprobe, docker buildx, xhost for x-passthrough, etc.)
Run VS Code in that shell so settings aren't thrown away with a specified directory (may be mounted via sshfs or other means) in container, not just open on the host
Run cleanup scripts to clean-up and/or destroy real resources (unmount, modprobe -r, etc.) when the development container is stopped (by either closing VS Code or rebuilding the container).
See this script for a simple example of auto-configuring a shell with an AWS instance via docker-machine. I'll be adding a few more examples to this repository over the coming day or so.
It's easy enough to open VS Code in that directory (code -w -n --folder-uri /path/here) and wait for it to quit (so I can perform cleanup steps like taking down the remote docker-machine, un-mounting reverse-sshfs mounted code or disabling kernel mods I use for development, etc.).
However, VS code currently opens in "host mode" and when I choose "Reopen in container" or "Rebuild container" via the UI or command palette, it kills that process and opens another top-level(?) process, quitting the shell & throwing away my configuration and/or prematurely running my cleanup portion of the script so it has the wrong env. when it finally launches in-container. Sadness.
So finally, my question is:
Is there a way to tell VS code to open a folder "in-container"? This would solve a ton of problems for me, instead of a janky dev. cycle where I have to ensure that the code instance isn't restarting itself and messing things up - whenever I rebuild the container, for example.
Alternatively, it'd be great to not quit the top-level code process I started altogether, enabling me to wait on that, or perhaps monitor it in other ways I'm not aware of to prevent erasure of my settings and premature run of my cleanup script?
Thanks in advance!
PS: Please read the entire question before flagging it as "not related to development". If the idea of a zero-install development environment for a complex native project, live on-device development/debugging or deep learning using cloud instances with giant GPUs for Docker where you don't have to manually manage everything and write pages of readmes appeals to you - this is very much about programming.
After all weekend of trying different things, I finally figured it out! The key was this section in the awesome articles about advanced container configuration.
I put that into a bash script and used jq to merge docker.host and other docker env settings into .vscode/settings.json. See this example here.
After running a script that generates this file, the user will only need to reload/relaunch VS code in that workspace folder (where the settings were created) and yay, everything works as expected.
I plan to add some actual samples now that I have the basics working. Unfortunately, I had to separate my create and teardown as separate activate and deactivate hooks. Not a bad workflow still, IMO.
I have an angular project I'm working on containerizing. It currently has enough build tooling that a front-end developer could (and this is how it currently works) just run gulp in the project root, edit source files in src/, and the build tooling handles running traceur, templates and libsass and so forth, spitting content into a build directory. That build directory is served with a minimal server in development, and handled by nginx in production.
My goal is to build a docker-based environment that replicates this workflow. My users are developers who are on different kinds of boxes, so having build dependencies frozen in a dockerfile seems to make sense.
I've gotten close enough to this- docker mounts the host volume, the developer edits the file on the local disk, and the gulp build watcher is running in the docker container instance and rebuilds the site (and triggers livereload, etc etc).
The issue I have is with wrapping my head around how filesystem layers work. Is this process of rebuilding files in the container's build/frontend directory generating a ton of extraneous saved layers? That's not something I'd really like, because I'm not wild about monotonically growing this instance as developers tweak and rebuild and tweak and rebuild. It'd only grow locally, but having to go through the "okay, time to clean up and start over" process seems tedious.
Is this process of rebuilding files in the container's build/frontend directory generating a ton of extraneous saved layers?
Nope, the only way to stack up extra layers is to commit a container with changes to a new image then use that new image to create the next container. Rinse, repeat.
Filesystem layers are saved when a container is committed to a new image (docker commit ...). When a container is running there will be a single read/write layer on top that contains all of the changes made to the container since it was created.
having to go through the "okay, time to clean up and start over" process seems tedious.
If you run the build container with docker run --rm ... then you'll get the cleanup for free. The build container will be created fresh from the image each time.
Also, data volumes bypass the union filesystem so there's a good chance you won't write to the container's filesystem at all.
I've been experimenting with docker recently but can't get my head around what I think is a fairly important/useful requirement:
The ability to download a NEW copy of a web site for running, when a container is run. NOT at build time, but at run time.
I have seen countless examples of Dockerfiles where java, tomcat, a copy of a WAR is installed and added to an image during build time, but none where that WAR is downloaded fresh each time "docker run -d me/myimage" is executed on the command line.
I think it might involve adding a CMD statement at the end of the Dockerfile but I wonder if people out there more experienced than me with docker have some advice? Perhaps I shouldn't even be attempting this and should re-build my images each time my web app has a new release? But that would mean I would have to distribute my new image via a private dockerhub or something right? I am not willing to stick my source in a public github repo and have the Dockerfile pull it and build it during an image build.
Thanks.
As Mark O'Connor said in his comment, it's certainly possible. A Docker container is just a process tree running on your Linux host, and with a few exceptions (generally involving privileged access to the kernel) can do anything you can do outside of a container.
So sure, you could put together an image that, when run, would download the most recent of an application and run it.
The reason this is considered a bad idea is that it suddenly becomes difficult if you want to run an older version of the application (or more generally a specific version). What if you redeploy your container and end up with a new version of the application that requires manual database schema upgrades before it will operate? Now instead of an application you have a brick.
Similarly, what if the newest version of the application is simply buggy? If you were performing the download and install at build time, you would simply deploy an image with an older version of the application.
Performing the application and download at run time makes the container unpredictable and less manageable.