In Hyperledger fabric each chaincode deployed runs in a separate docker container.
Hyperledger-composer, therefore, creates a new container at each upgrade of the chaincode. From my understanding composer-rest-server or any other way to interact with the composer channel always relies on the last version that has been deployed.
The framework itself does not stop containers running old chaincodes.
Should I do it manually? Is there a good reason to keep them running?
see Upgrading Hyperledger Fabric Business Network for the answer - you can stop them, yes. I suggest to read the link for more detail
Once an information is written on the Blockchain (via Hyperledger Composer or any other mean), you cannot remove it from the ledger.
Keeping the containers running old chaincodes can be considered as a mean to recover your network (for example, if you made a mistake in the ACL and you cannot access to your network anymore).
You can kill and remove old Docker containers using the following commands:
docker kill ID_OF_THE_OLD_CONTAINER
docker rm ID_OF_THE_OLD_CONTAINER
Related
I am setting up a series of Linux command line challenges (for internal use/training), similar to those at OverTheWire.org's Bandit. From some reading I have done of their infrastructure, they setup things as such:
All ssh-based games on OverTheWire run in Docker containers. When you
login with SSH to one of the games, a fresh Docker container is
created just for you. Noone else is logged in into your container, nor
are there any files from other players lying around. We opted for this
setup to provide each player with a clean environment to experiment
and learn in, which is automatically cleaned up when you log out.
This seems like an ideal solution, since everyone who logs in gets a completely clean environment (destroyed on logout) so that simultaneous players do not interfere with each other.
I am very new to Docker and understand it in principle, but am unsure about how to setup a similar system - particularly spawn new Docker instances on SSH login to a server and then destroy the instance on logout/disconnection.
I'd appreciate any advice on how to design/implement this kind of setup.
It seems to me there are two main goals here. First undestand what docker really makes and how it works. Second the sistem that orquestates the whole sistem.
Let me make some brief and short introduction. I won't go into details but mainly docker is a plaform that works like a system virtualization that lets you isolate a process, operating system or a whole aplication without any kind of hypervisor. The container shares the kernel of the host system and all that it cointains is islated from the host and the rest of the containers.
So the basic principle you are looking for is a system that orchestrates containers that has an ssh server with the port 22 open. Although there are many ways of how you could reach this goal, one way it can be with this docker sshd server image.
docker run -itd --rm rastasheep/ubuntu-sshd bash
Docker needs a process to keep alive. By using -it you are creating an interactive session with the "bash" interpreter. This will keep alive the container plus lets you start a bash terminal inside an isolated virtual ubuntu server.
--rm: will remove the container once you exists from the container.
rastasheep/ubuntu-sshd: it is the docker image id.
As you can see, there is a lack of a system that connects between your aplication and this docker platform. One approach would it be with a library that python has that uses the docker client programaticaly. As an advice I would recomend you to install docker in your computer and to try to create a couple of ubuntu servers with ssh server and to connect into it from your host. It will help you to see if it's really necesary to have sshd server, the network requisites you will need if so, to traffic all the clients into the containers. Read the oficial docker network documentation.
With the example I had described a new fresh terminal is started and there is no need to connect to the docker via ssh. By using this way you won't need to route the traffic, indentify the host free ports to connect your host to the containers or to check and shutdown the container once the connection has finished. Otherwhise the container will keep alive.
There are many ways where your system can be made and I would strongly recomend to you to start by creating some containers with the docker tool and start to understand how it works.
I have a Hyperledger Fabric network running with Docker swarm. I want to test Fabric by taking some peers down and see if the network still functions.
When the network is running I stop/start a peer container. Then I use the 'docker service update $peer-service --force' command to see if it goes back to being a service. Docker then makes a different new container and adds it to the service.
The new container has not joined the channel and has no chaincode installed on it. The first container still exist but is not part of the swarm anymore. I think it will be very inconvenient to manually install everything on a peer when it goes down on an already running network with many chainscodes.
Is there a way to join the old peer container back as the same service to the swarm?
You need to use volumes so that the block/channel data persists. So map the directory in the peer container that contains this information to a directory on your host machine.
I have been developing some Hyperledger networks with Hyperledger Composer and I have a question around the Docker containers which are created. Every time I make an update I have to "Deploy changes" which spins up a new Docker container so I have a huge list of Docker containers. I was wondering if the new deployment containers are dependent on the previous ones or can I docker rm them?
They Are independent , you can remove the old container as long as you don't use the old container that contains old smart contract.
Brand spanking new to Docker here. I have Docker running on a remote VM and am running a single dummy container on it (I can verify the container is running by issuing a docker ps command).
I'd like to secure my Docker installation by giving the docker user non-root access:
sudo usermod -aG docker myuser
But I'm afraid to muck around with Docker while any containers are running in case "hot deploys" create problems. So this has me wondering, in general: if I want to do any sort of operational work on Docker (daemon, I presume) while there are live containers running on it, what do I have to do? Do all containers need to be stopped/halted first? Or will Docker keep on ticking and apply the updates when appropriate?
Same goes for the containers themselves. Say I have a myapp-1.0.4 container deployed to a Docker daemon. Now I want to deploy myapp-1.0.5, how does this work? Do I stop 1.0.4, remove it from Docker, and then deploy/run 1.0.5? Or does Docker handle this for me under the hood?
if I want to do any sort of operational work on Docker (daemon, I presume) while there are live containers running on it, what do I have to do? Do all containers need to be stopped/halted first? Or will Docker keep on ticking and apply the updates when appropriate?
Usually, all containers are stopped first.
That happen typically when I upgrade docker itself: I find all my container stopped (except the data containers, which are just created, and remain so)
Say I have a myapp-1.0.4 container deployed to a Docker daemon. Now I want to deploy myapp-1.0.5, how does this work? Do I stop 1.0.4, remove it from Docker, and then deploy/run 1.0.5? Or does Docker handle this for me under the hood?
That depend on the nature and requirements of your app: for a completely stateless app, you could even run 1.0.5 (with different host ports mapped to your app exposed port), test it a bit, and stop 1.0.4 when you think 1.0.5 is ready.
But for an app with any kind of shared state or resource (mounted volumes, shared data container, ...), you would need to stop and rm 1.0.4 before starting the new container from 1.0.5 image.
(1) why don't you stop them [the data containers] when upgrading Docker?
Because... they were never started in the first place.
In the lifecycle of a container, you can create, then start, then run a container. But a data container, by definition, has no process to run: it just exposes VOLUME(S), for other container to mount (--volumes-from)
(2) What's the difference between a data/volume container, and a Docker container running, say a full bore MySQL server?
The difference is, again, that a data container doesn't run any process, so it doesn't exit when said process stops. That never happens, since there is no process to run.
The MySQL server container would be running as long as the server process doesn't stop.
After reading the introduction of the phusion/baseimage I feel like creating containers from the Ubuntu image or any other official distro image and running a single application process inside the container is wrong.
The main reasons in short:
No proper init process (that handles zombie and orphaned processes)
No syslog service
Based on this facts, most of the official docker images available on docker hub seem to do things wrong. As an example, the MySQL image runs mysqld as the only process and does not provide any logging facilities other than messages written by mysqld to STDOUT and STDERR, accessible via docker logs.
Now the question arises which is the appropriate way to run an service inside docker container.
Is it wrong to run only a single application process inside a docker container and not provide basic Linux system services like syslog?
Does it depend on the type of service running inside the container?
Check this discussion for a good read on this issue. Basically the official party line from Solomon Hykes and docker is that docker containers should be as close to single processes micro servers as possible. There may be many such servers on a single 'real' server. If a processes fails you should just launch a new docker container rather than try to setup initialization etc inside the containers. So if you are looking for the canonical best practices the answer is yeah no basic linux services. It also makes sense when you think in terms of many docker containers running on a single node, you really want them all to run their own versions of these services?
That being said the state of logging in the docker service is famously broken. Even Solomon Hykes the creator of docker admits its a work in progress. In addition you normally need a little more flexibility for a real world deployment. I normally mount my logs onto the host system using volumes and have a log rotate daemon etc running in the host vm. Similarly I either install sshd or leave an interactive shell open in the the container so I can issue minor commands without relaunching, at least until I am really sure my containers are air-tight and no more debugging will be needed.
Edit:
With docker 1.3 and the exec command its no longer necessary to "leave an interactive shell open."
It depends on the type of service you are running.
Docker allows you to "build, ship, and run any app, anywhere" (from the website). That tells me that if an "app" consists of/requires multiple services/processes, then those should be ran in a single Docker container. It would be a pain for a user to have to download, then run multiple Docker images just to run one application.
As a side note, breaking up your application into multiple images is subject to configuration drift.
I can see why you would want to limit a docker container to one process. One reason being uptime. When creating a Docker provisioning system, it's essential to keep the uptime of a container to a minimum so that scaling sideways is fast. This means, that if I can get away with running a single process per Docker container, then I should go for it. But that's not always possible.
To answer your question directly. No, it's not wrong to run a single process in docker.
HTH