I am pretty new to Docker, and this looks like a very simple question, that I do not seem to find an answer for, unless I am missing something obvious. I am creating a service using the following command:
docker service create --env-file host.env ...
The swarm consists of Windows nodes only, but it is possible Linux nodes will join in the future. Where do I put host.env file so I do not have to hardcode the path?
I would recommend you to use docker compose. But generally, the host.env should be in the directory you are executing docker service create.
Related
I'm pretty new to using Docker. I'm needing to deploy a NiFi instance through my employer, but the internal service we need to use requires a Dockerfile, not an image.
The service we're using requires the Dockerfile because each time the repository we're using is updated, the service is pointed to the Dockerfile and initiates the build process from it, then runs/operates the container.
I've already set up the NiFi flow to how it needs to operate, I'm just unsure of how to get a Dockerfile from an already existing container (or if that is even possible?)
I was looking into this myself, apparently there is no real way to do it, but you can inspect the docker container and pretty much get all the commands used to create the container except the OS used which is easy to find, you can spawn a bash into the container and do something like sudo uname -a, which you can just take and make your own docker image with. Usually you can find it on github, though.
docker inspect <image>
or you can do it through the docker desktop UI
You can use the Dockerfile that is in NiFi source code, see in this directory: https://github.com/apache/nifi/tree/main/nifi-docker/dockerhub
What I want to accomplish is the equivalent of :
docker run -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker sock <image>
EDITED:
I followed this: Does ECS task definition support volume mapping syntax?
But then it is unable to save because this type of bind mount is not available for fargate.
Is there another way to accomplish it for fargate?
You are trying to access the Docker socket from within a container managed by AWS. I guess this is not available. Instead, you need to make API calls to AWS to launch new containers. Maybe something like this? Or probably rethink the whole thing.
I already have a running container for both postgres and redis in use for various things. However, I started those from the command line months ago. Now I'm trying to install a new application and the recipe for this involves writing out a docker compose file which includes both postgres and redis as services.
Can the compose file be modified in such a way as to specify the already-running containers? Postgres already does a fine job of siloing any of the data, and I can't imagine that it would be a problem to reuse the running redis.
Should I even reuse them? It occurs to me that I could run multiple containers for both, and I'm not sure there would be any disadvantage to that (other than a cluttered docker ps output).
When I set container_name to the names of the existing containers, I get what I assume is a rather typical error of:
cb7cb3e78dc50b527f71b71b7842e1a1c". You have to remove (or rename) that container to be able to reuse that name.
Followed by a few that compain that the ports are already in use (5432, 6579, etc).
Other answers here on Stackoverflow suggest that if I had originally invoked these services from another compose file with the exact same details, I could do so here as well and it would reuse them. But the command I used to start them was somehow never written to my bash_history, so I'm not even sure of the details (other than name, ports, and restart always).
Are you looking for docker-compose's external_links keyword?
external_links allows you reuse already running containers.
According to docker-compose specification:
This keyword links to containers started outside this docker-compose.yml or even outside of Compose, especially for containers that provide shared or common services. external_links follow semantics similar to the legacy option links when specifying both the container name and the link alias (CONTAINER:ALIAS).
And here's the syntax:
external_links:
- redis_1
- project_db_1:mysql
- project_db_1:postgresql
You can give name for your container. If there is no container with the given name, then it is the first time to run the image. If the named container is found, restart the container.
In this way, you can reuse the container. Here is my sample script.
containerName="IamContainer"
if docker ps -a --format '{{.Names}}' | grep -Eq "^${containerName}\$"; then
docker restart ${containerName}
else
docker run --name ${containerName} -d hello-world
fi
You probably don't want to keep using a container that you don't know how to create. However, the good news is that you should be able to figure out how you can create your container again by inspecting it with the command
$ docker container inspect ID
This will display all settings, the docker-compose specific ones will be under Config.Labels. For container reuse across projects, you'd be interested in the values of com.docker.compose.project and com.docker.compose.service, so that you can pass them to docker-compose --project-name and use them as the service's name in your docker-compose.yaml.
Im facing the same problem since months now and i dont have an adequate solution.
Im running several Containers based on different images. Some of them were started using portainer with some arguments and volumes. Some of them were started using the CLI and docker start with some arguments and parameters.
Now all these settings are stored somewhere. Because if i stop and retart such a container, everything works well again. but, if i do a commit, backup it with tar and load it on a different system and do a docker start, it has lost all of its settings.
The procedure as described here: https://linuxconfig.org/docker-container-backup-and-recovery does not work in my case.
Now im thinking about to write an own web application which will create me some docker compose files based on my setting rather than to just do a docker start with the correct params. This web application should also take care of the volumes (just folders) and do a incremental backup of them with borg to a remote server.
But actually this is only an idea. Is there a way to "extract" a docker compose file of a running containter? So that i can redeploy a container 1:1 to an other server and just have to run docker run mycontainer and it will have the same settings?
Or do i have to write my web app? Or have i missed some page on google and there is already such a solution?
Thank you!
To see the current configuration of a container, you can use:
docker container inspect $container_id
You can then use those configurations to run your container on another machine. There is no easy import/export of these settings to start another container that I'm aware of.
Most people use a docker-compose.yml to define how they want a container run. They also build images with a Dockerfile and transfer them with a registry server rather than a save/load.
The docker-compose.yml can be used with docker-compose or docker stack deploy and allows the configuration of the container to be documented as a configuration file that is tracked in version control, rather than error prone user entered settings. Running containers by hand or starting them with a GUI is useful for a quick test or debugging, but not for reproducibility.
You would like to backup the instance but the commands you're providing are to backup the image. I'd suggest to update your Dockerfile to solve the issue. In case you really want to go down the saving the instance current status, you should use the docker export and docker import commands.
Reference:
https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/import/
https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/export/
NOTE: the docker export does not export the content of the volumes anyway, I suggest you to should refer to https://docs.docker.com/engine/admin/volumes/volumes/
There's Docker Swarm (now built into Docker) and Docker-Compose. People seem to use Docker-Compose when running containers on a single node only. However, Docker-Compose doesn't support any of the deploy config values, see https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#deploy, which include mem_limit and cpus, which seems like nice/important to be able to set.
So therefore maybe I should use Docker Swarm? although I'm deploying on a single node only. Also, then the installation instructions will be simpler for other people to follow (they won't need to install Docker-Compose).
But maybe there are reasons why I should not use Swarm on a single node?
I'm posting an answer below, but I'm not sure if it's correct.
Edit: Please note that this is not an opinion based question. If you have a look at the answer below, you'll see that there are "have-to" and "cannot-do" facts about this.
For development, use Docker-Compose. Because only Docker-Compose is able to read your Dockerfiles and build images for you. Docker Stack instead needs pre-built images. Also, with Docker-Compose, you can easily start and stop single containers, with docker-compose kill ... and ... start .... This is useful, during development (in my experience). For example, to see how the app server reacts if you kill the database. Then you don't want Swarm to auto-restart the database directly.
In production, use Docker Swarm (unless: see below), so you can configure mem limits. Docker-Compose has less functionality that Docker Swarm (no mem or cpu limits for example) and doesn't have anything that Swarm does not have (right?). So no reason to use Compose in production. (Except maybe if you know how Compose works already and don't want to spend time reading about the new Swarm commands.)
Docker Swarm doesn't, however, support .env files like Docker-Compose does. So you cannot have e.g. IMAGE_VERSION=1.2.3 in an .env file and then in the docker-compose.yml file have: image: name:${IMAGE_VERSION}. See https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/29133 — instead you'll need to set env vars "manually": IMAGE_VERSION=SOMETHING docker stack up ... (this actually made me stick with Docker-Compose. + that I didn't reasonably quickly find out how to view a container's log, via Swarm; Swarm seemed more complicated.)
In addition to #KajMagnus answer I should note that Docker Swarm still don't support Linux Capabilities as Docker [Compose] do. You can learn about this issue and dive into Docker community discussions here.