I have a Docker Volume used by several containers (Linux containers running on Windows). I would like to be able to access the Volume from the Windows machine through Windows Explorer, in the best case with a network drive, e.g.:
services:
smbd:
image: dperson/samba
ports:
- "445:445/tcp"
volumes:
- data:/public
...
volumes:
data:
external:
name: mydrive
In Windows, I can connect the drive Z: to \\docker.ip.address\public and am able to see its content, e.g. if the volume mydrive above contained the subfolder mystuff, I'd see the following on Windows:
- Z:\mystuff
The problem is, 445 is already in use on localhost (for SMB, of course) and one can't use a different port, as SMB is unforgiving. There's no problem if you use a VM, as the VM will have an adapter and IP of its own, so 445 is free again.
One possibility may be to connect Docker through a different adapter (and not try to use localhost:445), but I don't know how to do that with Windows.
The reason SMB is needed (rather than accessing the managed volume directly through explorer) is so that volumes can be easily switched out in Docker. An alternative that still works with the Docker volume would also be alright in my case.
Related
My app from container wants to access Mysql from host machine, but is not able to connect. I googled a lot and tried many solutions but could not figure the error, could you please help me on this.
It is a windows image
IIS Website works
Website pages that use DB Connection does not work
Mysql DB is install in local machine (same pc where docker desktop is installed in)
Connection string in app uses 'host.docker.internal' with port 3306.
Tried docker uninstall, reinstall, image prune, container prune, WSL stop and start, host file commenting for below lines:
192.168.1.8 host.docker.internal
192.168.1.8 gateway.docker.internal
Below is the ipconfig from container
Nslookup and Ping commands:
network LS:
Docker Compose:
version: "3.9"
services:
web:
container_name: dinesh_server_container
image: dinesh_server:1
build: .
ports:
- "8000:80"
- "8001:81"
volumes:
- .\rowowcf:c:\rowowcf
- .\rowowcf_supportfiles:c:\rowowcf_supportfiles
- .\rowocollectionsite:c:\rowocollectionsite
environment:
TZ: Asia/Calcutta
Build image uses: FROM mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/framework/aspnet:4.8
Host OS: Win 10 Pro 10.0.19043 Build 19043
HyperV is enabled too.
Tried the below too:
extra_hosts:
- "host.docker.internal:host-gateway"
Since it is on windows OS - host network mode is not supported (per my research)
EDIT:
MYSQL Bind Address is 0.0.0.0:
Maybe the problem is not directly related to docker but to mysql.
Please, try making your local mysql database listen in all the network interfaces of your host: by default it only listens in 127.0.0.1 and for this reason perhaps docker is unable to connect to it.
I am not sure about how to do it in Windows but typically you need to provide the value 0.0.0.0 for the bind-address configuration option in mysqld.cnf:
bind-address = 0.0.0.0
Please, consider review as well this article or this related serverfault question.
From a totally different point of view, I found this and this other related open issues in the Docker for Windows repository that in a certain way resembles your problem: especially the first one provides some workaround for the problem, like shutting down the wsl backend and restarting the docker daemon. I doesn't look like a solution to me, but perhaps it could be of help.
I have an easy apache docker setup defined in a docker-compose.yml:
services:
apache:
image: php:7.4-apache
command: /bin/bash -c "/var/www/html/startup.sh && exec 'apache2-foreground'"
volumes:
- ./:/var/www/html
- /c/Windows/System32/drivers/etc/hosts:/tmp/hostsfile
ports:
- "80:80"
From the startup.sh script I want to modify the hosts file from the host OS through the volume. Here I want to dynamically add an entry to resolve the hostname test.local to the ip address of the docker web application like so:
<ip-address> test.local
This way I should be able to open the application with the specified hostname http://test.local in my local browser.
Before writing the startup.sh script I wanted to try to manually open the application at http://172.19.0.2 via the containers IP address I got from
docker inspect apache_test
But the page won't open: ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT
Shouldn't I be able to access the application from that IP? What am I missing? Do I use the wrong IP address?
BTW: I am using Docker Desktop for Windows with the Hyper-V backend
Edit: I am able to access the application via http://localhost but since I want to add a new entry to the hosts file this is not the solution.
Apparently in newer versions of Docker Desktop for Windows you can't access (ping) your linux containers by IP.
Now there is some really dirty workaround for this that involves changing a .ps1 file of your Docker installation to get back the DockerNAT interface on windows. After that you need to add a new route in your windows routing table as described here:
route /P add <container-ip> MASK 255.255.0.0 <ip-found-in-docker-desktop-settings>
Then you might be able to ping your docker container from the windows host. I didn't test it though...
I found a solution to my original issue (resolution of test.local to container IP via hosts file) while reading one of the threads linked above here
That involves setting a free loopback IP in the 127.0.0.0/8 IP range in your ports section of the docker-compose.yml:
ports:
- "127.55.0.1:80:80"
After that you add the following to your hosts file:
127.55.0.1 test.local
And you can open your application at http://test.local
To do that for other dockerized applications too just choose another free loopback address.
I have a prototype that sends information to the host machine, and with Docker for Windows, the container grabs that information and everything works fine.
My docker-compose.yml file:
version: '3'
services:
middleware:
container_name: middleware
image: hyperloopupv:middleware
build: './receta'
ports:
- "5672:5672"
- "15672:15672"
- "1338:1338/udp"
- "5556:5556/udp"
But others from my team are using Docker Toolbox, and Docker Toolbox can not use localhost. I have tried to send the information from the prototype to the IP of the container(192.168.99.100), but the packets are lost.
Is there a way, that my team(using Docker Toolbox) and I(using Docker for Windows) can get this running without problems with the same compose file?
Thanks
Docker Desktop and Toolbox are completely different products. Docker Desktop runs on Hyper-V, Docker Toolbox on Virtualbox. Desktop is the actual product, Toolbox is the “legacy desktop solution”.
It is possible to manipulate its IP address. If you look a the docs under ‘Options’ you find an option called virtualbox-hostonly-cidr that you can use to manipulate the IP address when you create a new machine. But before you try this notice that it is called ‘hostonly’. This means it uses the Virtualbox Host-Only adapter and “the virtual machines cannot talk to the world outside the host since they are not connected to a physical networking interface” (from the Virtualbox docs).
So unfortunately it seems there is no simple solution to your problem.
To start, I am more familiar running Docker through Portainer than I am with doing it through the console.
What I'm Doing:
Currently, I'm running Mopidy through a container, which is being accessed by other machines through the default Mopidy port. In another container, I am running a Slack bot using the Limbo repo as a base. Both of them are running on Alpine Linux.
What I Need:
What I want to do is for my Slack bot to be able to call MPC commands, such as muting the volume, etc. This is where I am stuck. What is the best way for this to work
What I've tried:
I could ssh into the other container to send a command, but it doesn't make sense to do this since they're both running on the same server machine.
The best way to connect a bunch of containers is to define a service stack using docker-compose.yml file and launch all of them using docker-compose up. This way all the containers will be connected via single user-defined bridge network which will make all their ports accessible to each other without you explicitly publishing them. It will also allow the containers to discover each other by the service name via DNS-resolution.
Example of docker-compose.yml:
version: "3"
services:
service1:
image: image1
ports:
# the following only necessary to access port from host machine
- "host_port:container_port"
service2:
image: image2
In the above example any application in the service2 container can reach some port on service1 just by using service2:port address.
Currently in the company where I am working on they have a central development server which contains a LAMP environment. Each developer has access to the application as: developer_username.domain.com. The application we're working on uses licenses and the licenses are generated under each domain and are tied to the domain only meaning I can't use license from other developer.
The following example will give you an idea:
developer_1.domain.com ==> license1
developer_2.domain.com ==> license2
developer_n.domain.com ==> licenseN
I am trying to dockerize this enviroment at least having PHP and Apache in a container and I was able to create everything I need and it works. Take a look to this docker-compose.yml:
version: '2'
services:
php-apache:
env_file:
- dev_variables.env
image: reypm/php55-dev
build:
context: .
args:
- PUID=1000
- PGID=1000
ports:
- "80:80"
- "9001:9001"
extra_hosts:
- "dockerhost:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx"
volumes:
- ~/var/www:/var/www
That will build what I need but the problem comes when I try to access the server because I am using http://localhost and then the license won't work and I won't be able to use the application.
The idea is to access as developer_username.domain.com, so my question is: is this a work that should be done on the Dockerfile or the Docker Compose I mean at image/container level let's say by setting up a ENV var perhaps or is this a job for /etc/hosts on the host running the Docker?
tl;dr
No! Docker doesn't do that for you.
Long answer:
What you want to do is to have a custom hostname on the machine hosting docker mapped to a container in Docker compose network. right?
Let's take a step back and see how networking in docker works:
By default Compose sets up a single network for your app. Each container for a service joins the default network and is both reachable by other containers on that network, and discoverable by them at a hostname identical to the container name.
This network is not equal to your host network and without explicit ports exporting (for a specific container) you wouldn't have access to this network. All exposing does, is that:
The exposed port is accessible on the host and the ports are available to any client that can reach the host.
From now on you can put a reverse proxy (like nginx) or you can edit /etc/hosts to define how clients can access the host (i.e. Docker host, the machine running Docker compose).
The hostname is defined when you start the container, overwriting anything you attempt to put inside the image. At a high level, I'd recommend doing this with a mix of custom docker-compose.yml and a volume per developer, but each running an identical image. The docker-compose.yml can include the hostname and domain setting. Then everything else that needs to be hostname specific on the filesystem, and the license itself, should point to files on the volume. Lastly, include an entrypoint that does the right thing if a new hostname is started with a default or empty volume, populating it with the new hostname data and prompting for the license.