How to avoid service dependencies from being stopped in Docker Compose? - docker

Given the following Docker Compose file....
version: '3.8'
services:
producer:
image: producer
container_name: producer
depends_on: [db]
build:
context: ./producer
dockerfile: ./Dockerfile
db:
image: some-db-image
container_name: db
When I do docker-compose up producer obviously the db service gets started too. When I CTRL+C both services are stopped. This is expected and fine.
But sometimes, the db service is started before, on a different shell and so doing docker-compose up producer understands that db is running and only starts producer. But when I hit CTRL+C, both producer and db are stopped even though db was not started as part of this docker compose up command.
Is there a way to avoid getting the dependencies services stopped when stopping its "parent" ?

When running just docker-compose up, the CTRL+C command always stops all running services in the current compose scope. It doesn't care about depends_on.
You would need to spin it up with detach option -d, like
docker-compose up -d producer
Then you can do
docker stop producer
And db service should still be running.

As I understand your question: You want to stop a container A which depends on another container B. But when stopping A, you don't want docker-compose to stop B.
Docker-compose stops the dependent containers ('B' in this case) when 'A' is stopped.
How I would approach this:
Split up the docker-compose files into A and B
In docker-compose for A create a health check testing (and waiting) for container B to be alive.
Since this is a database, you could do this with a dummy query.
Then you still have dependency, but not the docker-compose connection of stopping dependant containers.

You can't simply do that with CTRL+C.
Your docker-compose file and the services defined in it are treated as a project. You may notice that all containers, networks and volumes are prefixed with the name of the directory where the docker-compose file is located by default. This is the project name. It can be changed via an environment variable or the -p flag of the docker-compose command.
What docker-compose does is it keeps track of all the resources for a given project.
In your case there are two services: db and producer. Whenever you run docker-compose up, both of them start up. They both end up being part of the same project. The same applies when you only start one of the services (e.g. with docker-compose up db). You can later start the other service and it will still be part of the same project.
One more thing to note here: Whenever you run docker-compose without the -d (detached) flag, you get attached to the whole project, meaning whenever you hit CTRL+C, you'll stop all services. It does not matter if the last compose command started only one of the services or if they depend on each other. Attaching to the project and hitting CTRL+C will stop them.
A possible solution to your problem would be the following:
Start up your services via docker-compose up -d (both db and producer will get created). They are now in detached mode. If you still want to check the logs in real time (kinda like attaching), use docker-compose logs -f. Now, however, if you want to stop only one of the services you can simply do docker-compose stop $SVC_NAME (where $SVC_NAME is either db or producer) and this will keep the other one running. This way, whatever happens to your terminal session, your services won't stop, unless you explicitly tell them to.

Is there a way to avoid getting the dependencies services stopped when stopping its "parent" ?
Yes.
Using the new version docker compose instead of docker-compose might solve your problem Reference.
Simple example
Assuming now you are using the new version, your process could be something like this.
docker-compose.yml
version: "3.8"
services:
db:
build: .
producer:
build: .
depends_on: [db]
extra:
build: .
Dockerfile
FROM node:alpine
WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
ENTRYPOINT [ "/bin/sh", "script.sh" ]
script.sh
while :; do sleep 1; done
Suppose db has started before with
$ docker compose up -d db.
Then later,
$ docker compose up -d producer.
Now you can stop only producer with
$ docker compose stop producer.
You can check if db is still running with
$ docker compose ps.
Notice the use of -d flag for detached mode, as pointed out in another answer, so you don't need to kill the process with CTRL+C. Also, using detached flag allows you to check the services that are running with docker compose ps.
A similar issue as yours was reported and fixed a while ago, as you can see here.

I was not able to reproduce the behavior you observe with a complete minimal example. Namely, when running docker compose stop producer, the underlying db is not stopped AFAICT.
Anyway, you may be interested in an alternative command that is a bit more flexible than docker compose up, regarding how to run "one-off commands": docker compose run.
The typical use cases are as follows:
docker compose run db bash → run the db service, replacing the default CMD with bash
docker compose run -d db → run the db service in the background (detach mode)
docker compose run --service-ports producer → run the service producer and its dependencies (unless they were run with docker compose up), enabling the ports mapping.
So for your specific use case, you could run:
docker compose up -d db
docker compose run --service-ports producer

Related

In docker-compose, why one service could reach another, but not the other way around?

I'm writing an automated test that involves running several containers at once. The test submits some workload to the tested service, and expects a callback from it after a time.
To run the whole system, I use docker compose run with the following docker-compose file:
version: "3.9"
services:
service:
build: ...
ports: ...
tester:
image: alpine
depends_on:
- service
profiles:
- testing
The problem is, I can see "service" from "tester", but not the other way around, so the callback from the service could not land to "tester":
$ docker compose -f .docker/docker-compose.yaml run --rm tester \
nslookup service
Name: service
Address 1: ...
$ docker compose -f .docker/docker-compose.yaml run --rm service \
nslookup tester
** server can't find tester: NXDOMAIN
I tried specifying the same network for them, and giving them "links", but the result is the same.
It seems like a very basic issue, so perhaps I'm missing something?
When you docker-compose run some-container, it starts a temporary container based on that description plus the things it depends_on:. So, when you docker-compose run service ..., it doesn't depends_on: anything, and Compose only starts the temporary container, which is why the tester container doesn't exist at that point.
If you need the whole stack up to make connections both ways between containers, you need to run docker-compose up -d. You can still docker-compose run temporary containers on top of these.

Docker compose command is failing with conflict

I am bringing up my project dependencies using docker-compose. So far this used to work
docker-compose up -d --no-recreate;
However today I tried running the project again after couple of weeks and I was greeted with error message
Creating my-postgres ... error
ERROR: for my-postgres Cannot create container for service postgres: b'Conflict. The container name "/my-postgres" is already in use by container "dbd06bb1d99eda6f075ea688df16e8b355e559e1759f084dee8f3cddfc535b0b". You have to remove (or rename) that container to be able to reuse that name.'
ERROR: for postgres Cannot create container for service postgres: b'Conflict. The container name "/my-postgres" is already in use by container "dbd06bb1d99eda6f075ea688df16e8b355e559e1759f084dee8f3cddfc535b0b". You have to remove (or rename) that container to be able to reuse that name.'
ERROR: Encountered errors while bringing up the project.
My docker-compose.yml file is
postgres:
container_name: my-postgres
image: postgres:latest
ports:
- "15432:5432"
Docker version is
Docker version 19.03.1, build 74b1e89
Docker compose version is
docker-compose version 1.24.1, build 4667896b
Intended behavior of this call is to:
make the container if it does not exist
start the container if it exists
just chill and do nothing if the container is already started
Docker Compose normally assigns a container name based on its current project name and the name of the services: block. Specifying container_name: explicitly overrides this; but, it means you can’t launch multiple copies of the same Compose file with different project names (from different directories) because the container name you’ve explicitly chosen won’t be used.
You almost never care what the container name is explicitly. It only really matters if you’re trying to use plain docker commands to manipulate Compose-managed containers; it has no impact on inter-service communication. Just delete the container_name: line.
(For similar reasons you can almost always delete hostname: and links: sections if you have them with no practical impact on your overall system.)
In my case I moved the project in an other directory.
When I tryed to run docker-compose up it failed because of some conflicts.
With command docker system prune I resolved them.
It's caused by being in a different directory than when you last ran docker-compose up. One option is to change back to the original directory. Or if you've configured it as a systemd service you can use systemctl.
Well...the error message seems pretty straightforward to me...
The container name "/my-postgres" is already in use by container
If you just want to restart where you left, you should use docker-compose start.
Otherwise, just clean up your workspace before running it :
docker-compose down
docker-compose up -d
Remove --no-recreate flag from your docker-compose command. And execute the command again.
$docker-compose up -d
--no-recreate is using for preventing accedental updates.
If there are existing containers for a service, and the service’s configuration or image was changed after the container’s creation, docker-compose up picks up the changes by stopping and recreating the containers. To prevent Compose from picking up changes, use the --no-recreate flag.
official docker docs.Link
I had similar issue
dcdown --remove-orphans
That worked for me.

Docker-compose --exit-code-from is ignored

Supposed I have multiple containers deployed
init
service1
service2
db
web
test
The init container runs into completion and then shutdowns by itself. That is his job, which is to do some
pre-configuration stuffs then exit.
When running locally, I dont have any issues running this in my desktop work environment.
My issue is when it is deployed in my CI pipeline. When my init container finished up...it shutdowns the whole
docker-compose network.
Even if I explicitly set the --exit-code-from into my test container.
docker-compose up --exit-code-from test
The end result is that I am not able to run my test cases to its completion because everything is being shutdown by the init container that exits.
Anybody has hints what can I do?
This is interesting. Is it possible to include the compose file? Maybe you have a depends_on defined, and the version of docker used by your CI pipeline handles it differently from the one on your dev environment.
At any rate, you'd want to stop using --exit-code-from, it apparently implies --abort-on-container-exit.
From https://docs.docker.com/compose/reference/up/:
--abort-on-container-exit Stops all containers if any container was
stopped. Incompatible with -d.
--exit-code-from SERVICE Return the exit code of the selected service
container. Implies --abort-on-container-exit.
I ran into the same issue when trying to run Cypress together with MongoDB seeding container and a replica set starter container. The 2 mongo-related containers would exit quickly after doing their job, thus triggering the unintuitive --abort-on-container-exit implied by --exit-code-from cypress.
For me the simplest solution was to use the tail -f /dev/null hack. The idea is that if you run this command after whatever the containers that you don't want to exit are finished with their actual jobs, they will hang until another container triggers the --abort-on-container-exit and pulls with it the entire docker-compose setup down.
Note that this is not a univsal answer: the downside of this approach is that you have to find out what the original CMD is in containers that you don't have control over.
For example, let's take the mongo-seeding project and their Dockerfile. In order to keep the container alive after doing its job, I'd like to make my own Dockerfile in which I'll pull that image and define a custom ENTRYPOINT that will first run the CMD from the original definition of the mongo-seeding image and then run tail -f /dev/null to keep the container alive. In their Dockerfile I can see that the CMD is simply seed and I can assume it won't change in the future (good design) so my ENTRYPOINT script entry.sh can just look like this:
#!/bin/sh
seed
tail -f /dev/null
And my Dockerfile:
FROM pkosiec/mongo-seeding:3.6.0
ENTRYPOINT [ "/app/scripts/entry.sh" ]
Plus the relevant service in docker-compose with volumes mount for completeness:
mongo-seed:
build:
context: ./mongoSeed
volumes:
- ./mongoSeed/data:/app/data
- ./mongoSeed/scripts:/app/scripts
working_dir: /app/data
depends_on:
- mongodb
Which makes the container do its job and then hang until Cypress exits and causes the entire docker-compose setup to stop.

How does one close a dependent container with docker-compose?

I have two containers that are spun up using docker-compose:
web:
image: personal/webserver
depends_on:
- database
entrypoint: /usr/bin/runmytests.sh
database:
image: personal/database
In this example, runmytests.sh is a script that runs for a few seconds, then returns with either a zero or non-zero exit code.
When I run this setup with docker-compose, web_1 runs the script and exits. database_1 remains open, because the process running the database is still running.
I'd like to trigger a graceful exit on database_1 when web_1's tasks have been completed.
You can pass the --abort-on-container-exit flag to docker-compose up to have the other containers stop when one exits.
What you're describing is called a Pod in Kubernetes or a Task in AWS. It's a grouping of containers that form a unit. Docker doesn't have that notion currently (Swarm mode has "tasks" which come close but they only support one container per task at this point).
There is a hacky workaround beside scripting it as #BMitch described. You could mount the Docker daemon socket from the host. Eg:
web:
image: personal/webserver
depends_on:
- database
volumes:
- /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock
entrypoint: /usr/bin/runmytests.sh
and add the Docker client to your personal/webserver image. That would allow your runmytests.sh script to use the Docker CLI to shut down the database first. Eg: docker kill database.
Edit:
Third option. If you want to stop all containers when one fails, you can use the --abort-on-container-exit option to docker-compose as #dnephin mentions in another answer.
I don't believe docker-compose supports this use case. However, making a simple shell script would easily resolve this:
#!/bin/sh
docker run -d --name=database personal/database
docker run --rm -it --entrypoint=/usr/bin/runmytests.sh personal/webserver
docker stop database
docker rm database

How to link multiple Docker containers and encapsulate the result?

I have a Node.js web-application that connects to a Neo4j database. I would like to encapsulate these in a single Docker image (using also a Neo4j Docker container), but I'm a docker novice and can't seem to figure this out. What's the recommended way to do it in the latest Docker versions?
My intuition would be to run the Neo4j container nested inside the app container. But from what I've read, I think the supported / recommended approach is to link the containers together. What I need is pretty well illustrated in this image. But the article where the image comes from isn't clear to me. Anyway, it's using the soon-to-be-deprecated legacy container linking, while networking is recommended these days. A tutorial or explanation would be much appreciated.
Also, how does docker-compose fit into all this?
Running a container within another container would imply to run a Docker engine within a Docker container. This is referenced as dind for Docker-in-Docker and I would strongly advise against it. You can search 'dind' online and discover why in most cases it is a bad idea, but as it is not the main object of your question I won't extend this subject any further.
Running both a node.js process and a neo4j process in the same container
While most people will tell you to refrain yourself from running more than one process within a Docker container, nothing prevents you from doing so. If you want to follow this path, take a look at the Using Supervisor with Docker from the Docker documentation website, or at the Phusion baseimage Docker image.
Just be aware that this way of doing things will make your Docker image more and more difficult to maintain over time.
Linking containers
As you found out, keeping Docker images as simple as you can (i.e: running one and only one app within a Docker container) will make your life easier on the long term.
Linking containers together is trivial when both containers run on the same Docker engine. It is just a matter of:
having your neo4j container expose the port its service listens on
running your node.js container with the --link <neo4j container name>:<alias> option
within the node.js application configuration, set the neo4j host to the <alias> hostname, docker will take care of forwarding that connection to the IP it assigned to the neo4j container
When you want to run those two containers on different hosts, things get more difficult.
With Docker Compose, you have to use the link: key to define your links
The new Docker network feature
You also discovered that linking containers won't be supported in the future and that the new way of making multiple Docker containers communicate is to create a virtual network and attach those 2 containers to that network.
Here's how to proceed:
docker network create mynet
docker run --detach --name myneo4j --net mynet neo4j
docker run --detach --name mynodejs --net mynet <your nodejs image>
Your node application configuration should then use myneo4j as the host to connect to.
To tell Docker Compose to use the new network feature, you would have to use the --x-networking option. Also you would not use the links: key.
Using the new networking feature also means that you won't be able to define any alias for the db. As a result you have to use the container name. Beware that unless you use the container_name: key in your docker-compose.yml file, Compose will create container names based on the directory which contains your docker-compose.yml file, the service name as found in the yml file and a number.
For instance, the following docker-compose.yml file, if within a directory named "foo" would create two containers named foo_web_1 and foo_db_1:
web:
build: .
ports:
- "8000:8000"
db:
image: postgres
when started with docker-compose --x-networking up, the web app configuration should then use foo_db_1 as the db hostname.
While if you use container_name:
web:
build: .
ports:
- "8000:8000"
db:
image: postgres
container_name: mydb
when started with docker-compose --x-networking up, the web app configuration should then use mydb as the db hostname.
Example of using Docker Compose to run a web app using nodeJS and neo4j
In this example, I will show how to dockerize the example app from github project aseemk/node-neo4j-template which uses nodejs and neo4j.
I assume you already have Docker 1.9.0+ and Docker Compose 1.5+ installed.
This project will use 2 docker containers, one to run the neo4j database and one to run the nodeJS web app.
Dockerizing the web app
We need to build a Docker image from which Docker compose will run a container. For that, we will write a Dockerfile.
Create a file named Dockerfile (mind the capital D) with the following content:
FROM node
RUN git clone https://github.com/aseemk/node-neo4j-template.git
WORKDIR /node-neo4j-template
RUN npm install
# ugly 20s sleep to wait for neo4j to initialize
CMD sleep 20s && node app.js
This Dockerfile describes the steps the Docker engine will have to follow to build a docker image for our web app. This docker image will:
be based on the official node docker image
clone the nodeJS example project from Github
change the working directory to the directory containing the git clone
run the npm install command to download and install the nodeJS app dependencies
instruct docker which command to use when running a container of that image
A quick review of the nodeJS code reveals that the author allows us to configure the URL to use to connect to the neo4j database using the NEO4J_URL environment variable.
Dockerizing the neo4j database
Well people took care of that for us already. We will use the official Docker image for neo4j which can be found on the Docker Hub.
A quick review of the readme tells us to use the NEO4J_AUTH environment variable to change the neo4j password. And setting this variable to none will disable the authentication all together.
Setting up Docker Compose
In the same directory as the one containing our Dockerfile, create a docker-compose.yml file with the following content:
db:
container_name: my-neo4j-db
image: neo4j
environment:
NEO4J_AUTH: none
web:
build: .
environment:
NEO4J_URL: http://my-neo4j-db:7474
ports:
- 80:3000
This Compose configuration file describes 2 services: db and web.
The db service will produce a container named my-neo4j-db from the official neo4j docker image and will start that container setting up the NEO4J_AUTH environment variable to none.
The web service will produce a container named at docker compose discretion using a docker image built from the Dockerfile found in the current directory (build: .). It will start that container setting up the environment variable NEO4J_URL to http://my-neo4j-db:7474 (note how we use here the name of the neo4j container my-neo4j-db). Furthermore, docker compose will instruct the Docker engine to expose the web container's port 3000 on the docker host port 80.
Firing it up
Make sure you are in the directory that contains the docker-compose.yml file and type: docker-compose --x-networking up.
Docker compose will read the docker-compose.yml file, figure out it has to first build a docker image for the web service, then create and start both containers and finally will provide you with the logs from both containers.
Once the log shows web_1 | Express server listening at: http://localhost:3000/, everything is cooked and you can direct your Internet navigator to http://<ip of the docker host>/.
To stop the application, hit Ctrl+C.
If you want to start the app in the background, use docker-compose --x-networking up -d instead. Then in order to display the logs, run docker-compose logs.
To stop the service: docker-compose stop
To delete the containers: docker-compose rm
Making neo4j storage persistent
The official neo4j docker image readme says the container persists its data on a volume at /data. We then need to instruct Docker Compose to mount that volume to a directory on the docker host.
Change the docker-compose.yml file with the following content:
db:
container_name: my-neo4j-db
image: neo4j
environment:
NEO4J_AUTH: none
volumes:
- ./neo4j-data:/data
web:
build: .
environment:
NEO4J_URL: http://my-neo4j-db:7474
ports:
- 80:3000
With that config file, when you will run docker-compose --x-networking up, docker compose will create a neo4j-data directory and mount it into the container at location /data.
Starting a 2nd instance of the application
Create a new directory and copy over the Dockerfile and docker-compose.yml files.
We then need to edit the docker-compose.yml file to avoid name conflict for the neo4j container and the port conflict on the docker host.
Change its content to:
db:
container_name: my-neo4j-db2
image: neo4j
environment:
NEO4J_AUTH: none
volumes:
- ./neo4j-data:/data
web:
build: .
environment:
NEO4J_URL: http://my-neo4j-db2:7474
ports:
- 81:3000
Now it is ready for the docker-compose --x-networking up command. Note that you must be in the directory with that new docker-compose.yml file to start the 2nd instance up.

Resources