I'm trying to pass redis url to docker container but so far i couldn't get it to work. I did a little research and none of the answers worked for me.
version: '3.2'
services:
redis:
image: 'bitnami/redis:latest'
container_name: redis
hostname: redis
expose:
- 6379
links:
- api
api:
image: tufanmeric/api:latest
volumes:
- /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock
networks:
- proxy
environment:
- REDIS_URL=redis
depends_on:
- redis
deploy:
mode: global
labels:
- 'traefik.port=3002'
- 'traefik.frontend.rule=PathPrefix:/'
- 'traefik.frontend.rule=Host:api.example.com'
- 'traefik.docker.network=proxy'
networks:
proxy:
Error: Redis connection to redis failed - connect ENOENT redis
You can only communicate between containers on the same Docker network. Docker Compose creates a default network for you, and absent any specific declaration your redis container is on that network. But you also declare a separate proxy network, and only attach the api container to that other network.
The single simplest solution to this is to delete all of the network: blocks everywhere and just use the default network Docker Compose creates for you. You may need to format the REDIS_URL variable as an actual URL, maybe like redis://redis:6379.
If you have a non-technical requirement to have separate networks, add - default to the networks listing for the api container.
You have a number of other settings in your docker-compose.yml that aren't especially useful. expose: does almost nothing at all, and is usually also provided in a Dockerfile. links: is an outdated way to make cross-container calls, and as you've declared it to make calls from Redis to your API server. hostname: has no effect outside the container itself and is usually totally unnecessary. container_name: does have some visible effects, but usually the container name Docker Compose picks is just fine.
This would leave you with:
version: '3.2'
services:
redis:
image: 'bitnami/redis:latest'
api:
image: tufanmeric/api:latest
volumes:
- /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock
environment:
- REDIS_URL=redis://redis:6379
depends_on:
- redis
deploy:
mode: global
labels:
- 'traefik.port=3002'
- 'traefik.frontend.rule=PathPrefix:/'
- 'traefik.frontend.rule=Host:api.example.com'
- 'traefik.docker.network=default'
Related
I am trying to set up a 2 node private IPFS cluster using docker. For that purpose I am using ipfs/ipfs-cluster:latest image.
My docker-compose file looks like :
version: '3'
services:
peer-1:
image: ipfs/ipfs-cluster:latest
ports:
- 8080:8080
- 4001:4001
- 5001:5001
volumes:
- ./cluster/peer1/config:/data/ipfs-cluster
peer-2:
image: ipfs/ipfs-cluster:latest
ports:
- 8081:8080
- 4002:4001
- 5002:5001
volumes:
- ./cluster/peer2/config:/data/ipfs-cluster
While starting the containers getting following error
ERROR ipfshttp: error posting to IPFS: Post http://127.0.0.1:5001/api/v0/repo/stat?size-only=true: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:5001: connect: connection refused ipfshttp.go:745
Please help with the problem.
Is there any proper documentation about how to setup a IPFS cluster on docker. This document misses on lot of details.
Thank you.
I figured out how to run a multi-node IPFS cluster on docker environment.
The current ipfs/ipfs-cluster which is version 0.4.17 doesn't run ipfs peer i.e. ipfs/go-ipfs in it. We need to run it separately.
So now in order to run a multi-node (2 node in this case) IPSF cluster in docker environment we need to run 2 IPFS peer container and 2 IPFS cluster container 1 corresponding to each peer.
So your docker-compose file will look as follows :
version: '3'
networks:
vpcbr:
driver: bridge
ipam:
config:
- subnet: 10.5.0.0/16
services:
ipfs0:
container_name: ipfs0
image: ipfs/go-ipfs
ports:
- "4001:4001"
- "5001:5001"
- "8081:8080"
volumes:
- ./var/ipfs0-docker-data:/data/ipfs/
- ./var/ipfs0-docker-staging:/export
networks:
vpcbr:
ipv4_address: 10.5.0.5
ipfs1:
container_name: ipfs1
image: ipfs/go-ipfs
ports:
- "4101:4001"
- "5101:5001"
- "8181:8080"
volumes:
- ./var/ipfs1-docker-data:/data/ipfs/
- ./var/ipfs1-docker-staging:/export
networks:
vpcbr:
ipv4_address: 10.5.0.7
ipfs-cluster0:
container_name: ipfs-cluster0
image: ipfs/ipfs-cluster
depends_on:
- ipfs0
environment:
CLUSTER_SECRET: 1aebe6d1ff52d96241e00d1abbd1be0743e3ccd0e3f8a05e3c8dd2bbbddb7b93
IPFS_API: /ip4/10.5.0.5/tcp/5001
ports:
- "9094:9094"
- "9095:9095"
- "9096:9096"
volumes:
- ./var/ipfs-cluster0:/data/ipfs-cluster/
networks:
vpcbr:
ipv4_address: 10.5.0.6
ipfs-cluster1:
container_name: ipfs-cluster1
image: ipfs/ipfs-cluster
depends_on:
- ipfs1
- ipfs-cluster0
environment:
CLUSTER_SECRET: 1aebe6d1ff52d96241e00d1abbd1be0743e3ccd0e3f8a05e3c8dd2bbbddb7b93
IPFS_API: /ip4/10.5.0.7/tcp/5001
ports:
- "9194:9094"
- "9195:9095"
- "9196:9096"
volumes:
- ./var/ipfs-cluster1:/data/ipfs-cluster/
networks:
vpcbr:
ipv4_address: 10.5.0.8
This will spin 2 peer IPFS cluster and we can store and retrieve file using any of the peer.
The catch here is we need to provide the IPFS_API to ipfs-cluster as environment variable so that the ipfs-cluster knows its corresponding peer. And for both the ipfs-cluster we need to have the same CLUSTER_SECRET.
According to the article you posted:
The container does not run go-ipfs. You should run the IPFS daemon
separetly, for example, using the ipfs/go-ipfs Docker container. We
recommend mounting the /data/ipfs-cluster folder to provide a custom,
working configuration, as well as persistency for the cluster data.
This is usually achieved by passing -v
:/data/ipfs-cluster to docker run).
If in fact you need to connect to another service within the docker-compose, you can simply refer to it by the service name, since hostname entries are created in all the containers in the docker-compose so services can talk to each other by name instead of ip
Additionally:
Unless you run docker with --net=host, you will need to set $IPFS_API
or make sure the configuration has the correct node_multiaddress.
The equivalent of --net=host in docker-compose is network_mode: "host" (incompatible with port-mapping) https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#network_mode
I am deploying a small stack onto a UCP
One of the issues I am facing is naming the container for service1.
I need to have a static name for the container, since it's utilized by mycustomimageforservice2
The container_name option is ignored when deploying a stack in swarm mode with a (version 3) Compose file.
I have to use version: 3 compose files.
version: "3"
services:
service1:
image: dockerhub/service1
ports:
- "8080:8080"
container_name: service1container
networks:
- mynet
service2:
image: myrepo/mycustomimageforservice2
networks:
- mynet
restart: on-failure
networks:
mynet:
What are my options?
You can't force a containerName in compose as its designed to allow things like scaling a service (by updating the number of replicas) and that wouldn't work with names.
One service can access the other using servicename (http://serviceName:internalServicePort) instead and docker will do the rest for you (such as resolving to an actual container address, load balancing between replicas....).
This works with the default network type which is overlay
You can face your problem linking services in docker-compose.yml file.
Something like:
version: "3"
services:
service1:
image: dockerhub/service1
ports:
- "8080:8080"
networks:
- mynet
service2:
image: myrepo/mycustomimageforservice2
networks:
- mynet
restart: on-failure
links:
- service1
networks:
mynet:
Using links arguments in your docker-compose.yml you will allow some service to access another using the container name, in this case, service2 would establish a connection to service1 thanks to the links parameter. I'm not sure why you use a network but with the links parameter would not be necessary.
container_name option is ignored when deploying a stack in swarm mode since container names need to be unique.
https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#container_name
If you do have to use version 3 but don't work with swarms, you can add --compatibility to your commands.
Specify a custom container name, rather than a generated default name.
container_name: my-web-container
see this in the full docker-compose file
version: '3.9'
services:
node-ecom:
build: .
image: "node-ecom-image:1.0.0"
container_name: my-web-container
ports:
- "4000:3000"
volumes:
- ./:/app:ro
- /app/node_modules
- /config/.env
env_file:
- ./config/.env
know more
I'm learning docker. I see those two terms that make me confused. For example here is a docker-compose that defined two services redis and web-app.
services:
redis:
container_name: redis
image: redis:latest
ports:
- "6379:6379"
networks:
- lognet
app:
container_name: web-app
build:
context: .
dockerfile: Dockerfile
ports:
- "3000:3000"
volumes:
- ".:/webapp"
links:
- redis
networks:
- lognet
networks:
lognet:
driver: bridge
This docker-compose file defines a bridge network named lognet and all services will connect to this network. As I understand, this action makes those services see others. So why app service still needs to link to redis service in the above case?
Thanks
Links have been replaced by networks. Docker describes them as a legacy feature that you should avoid using. You can safely remove the link and the two containers will be able to refer to each other by their service name (or container_name).
With compose, links do have a side effect of creating an implied dependency. You should replace this with a more explicit depends_on section so that the app doesn't attempt to run without or before redis starts.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of hard coding container_name unless you are certain that this is the only container that will exist with that name on the host and you need to refer to it from the docker cli by name. Without the container name, docker-compose will give it a less intuitive name, but it will also give it an alias of redis on the network, which is exactly what you need for container to container networking. So the end result with these suggestions is:
version: '2'
# do not forget the version line, this file syntax is invalid without it
services:
redis:
image: redis:latest
ports:
- "6379:6379"
networks:
- lognet
app:
container_name: web-app
build:
context: .
dockerfile: Dockerfile
ports:
- "3000:3000"
volumes:
- ".:/webapp"
depends_on:
- redis
networks:
- lognet
networks:
lognet:
driver: bridge
I have a couple of app containers that I want to connect to the mongodb container. I tried with external_links but I can not connect to the mongodb.
I get
MongoError: failed to connect to server [mongodb:27017] on first
connect
Do I have to add the containers into the same network to get external_links working?
MongoDB:
version: '2'
services:
mongodb:
image: mongo:3.4
restart: always
ports:
- "27017:27017"
volumes:
- data:/data/db
volumes:
data:
App:
version: '2'
services:
app-dev:
restart: Always
build: repository/
ports:
- "3000:80"
env_file:
- ./environment.env
external_links:
- mongodb_mongodb_1:mongodb
Networks:
# sudo docker network ls
NETWORK ID NAME DRIVER SCOPE
29f8bae3e136 bridge bridge local
67d5519cb2e6 dev_default bridge local
9e7097c844cf host host local
481ee4301f7c mongodb_default bridge local
4275508449f6 none null local
873a46298cd9 prod_default bridge local
Documentation at https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#/externallinks says
If you’re using the version 2 file format, the externally-created containers must be connected to at least one of the same networks as the service which is linking to them.
Ex:
Create a new docker network
docker network create -d bridge custom
docker-compose-1.yml
version: '2'
services:
postgres:
image: postgres:latest
ports:
- 5432:5432
networks:
- custom
networks:
custom:
external: true
docker-compose-2.yml
version: '2'
services:
app:
image: training/webapp
networks:
- custom
external_links:
- postgres:postgres
networks:
custom:
external: true
Yuva's answer above for the version 2 holds good for version 3 as well.
The documentation for the external_links isn't clear enough.
For more clarity I pasted the version 3 variation with annotation
version: '3'
services:
app:
image: training/webapp
networks:
- <<network created by other compose file>>
external_links:
- postgres:postgres
networks:
<<network created by other compose file>>:
external: true
Recently I faced Name resolution failure trying to link 2 containers handled by docker-compose v3 representing gRPC server and client in my case, but failed and with external_links.
I'll probably duplicate some of the info posted here, but will try to summarize
as all these helped me solving the issue.
From external_links docs (as mentioned in earlier answer):
If you’re using the version 2 or above file format, the externally-created containers must be connected to at least one of the same networks as the service that is linking to them.
The following configuration solved the issue.
project-grpc-server/docker-compose.yml
version: '3'
services:
app:
networks:
- some-network
networks:
some-network:
Server container configured as expected.
project-grpc-client/docker-compose.yml
services:
app:
external_links:
# Assigning easy alias to the target container
- project-grpc-server_app_1:server
networks:
# Mentioning current container as a part of target network
- project-grpc-server_some-network
networks:
# Announcing target network (where server resides)
project-grpc-server_some-network:
# Telling that announced network already exists (shouldn't be created but used)
external: true
When using defaults (no container_name configured) the trick with configuring client container is in prefixes. In my case network name had prefix project-grpc-server_ when working with docker-compose and than goes the name itself some-network (project-grpc-server_some-network). So fully qualified network names should be passed when dealing with separate builds.
While container name is obvious as it appears from time to time on the screen the full network name is not easy-to-guess candidate when first facing this section of Docker, unless docker network ls.
I'm not a Docker expert, so please don't judge too strict if all this is obvious and essential in Docker world.
I'm trying to split legacy system combined from hbase and php module into two separated containers with the following docker-compose file:
version: '2'
services:
php:
image: my-legacy-php
volumes:
- ~/workspace/php:/workspace/php
ports:
- "80:80"
links:
- hbase
hbase:
image: dajobe/hbase
hostname: hbase-docker
ports:
- "43590-44000:43590-44000"
- "8085:8085"
- "2181:2181"
- "8080:8080"
- "16010:16010"
- "9095:9095"
- "9090:9091"
- "16020:16020"
- "16030:16030"
- "60000:60000"
volumes:
- ~/workspace/hbase-docker/data:/data
I'm using a public hbase-docker image which using port 9090 for thrift while my legacy php module expect to connect via port 9091. I've tried to 'map' or 'forward' within the docker-compose.yml file "9090:9091" without lack. I also tried the expose attribute of docker-compose but it doesn't takes two ports (only one which is exposed to the other containers). How do I make that append?
I want that the listening port 9090 of hbase container will appear as 9091 from the php container (inside)
One of the possible solutions is: Building your own image, with dajobe/hbase as the base image, but modifying the hbase configs and ports exposed using EXPOSE to match your requirements, And then use that image in your compose file.
But this would require you have build and managing the image by yourself.
The solution is to put both services on the same docker network.
Specifically, add this to your docker-compose.yml:
networks:
app_net:
driver: bridge
Then, in each service's config be sure to include:
networks:
- app_net
Finally (and you've already done this), be sure that the correct port mapping is included in the config for hbase:
ports:
- "9090:9091"